by russell
for some reason, I recently found myself looking into the famous Margaret Thatcher quote. You know the one:
There is no such thing as society.
It's a sort of counter-intuitive, and maybe disturbing, thing for the Prime Minister of a major nation to come out with. So, I wanted to understand what she was on about.
The quote comes from a much longer interview (which is worth reading) with Woman's Own, a UK lifestyle magazine. I'd like to present the original quote in a slightly larger context:
There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.
When I read this, my first reaction to was find myself, to my own surprise, to be in profound agreement with Margaret freaking Thatcher.
My second reaction was to ask, "What is that, if it is not society?".
Reading the whole piece, what I think Thatcher is after is the idea that "society" is not some entity floating out there in the ether, separate from the people who make it up, and from which people can simply expect a lifetime of benefits without also incurring a reciprocal obligation.
With which, as it turns out, I agree.
What I think gets lost in the debate between "conservatives" and "liberals" and whoever else wants to chime in is that, ultimately, what we are talking about is the question of *whether, and how, we are obliged toward each other*.
When we talk about "society" having an obligation to take care of the less fortunate, we are talking about the obligations that exist between some of the people in that society towards others.
When we talk about the obligations of the less fortunate to not expect "society" to do everything for them, we are talking about a more or less reciprocal set of obligations that exist between the same, or similar, sets of people.
The claims each may make, in both (and all) directions, are claims made by some people, on other people. And, the claims made are legitimate *because they all participate in a common society*.
A point that is often made at this juncture is that that is all well and good when we're talking about relationships between private individuals, but by god government has nothing to do with it.
Which makes me then ask, well what the hell is government if it is not the instrument by which a society manages its common life?
That's all I got for tonight. I have no grand conclusion to draw, I'm just trying to figure it all out.
I would say that “conservatives” and “liberals” generally disagree on how we are obliged toward each other. Where they agree (and disagree with the libertarians) is that we ARE obliged toward each other.
As I understand it, the libertarian view is that all “obligations” towards others are strictly matters of convenience. At least, it they do hold some obligations towards others to be real, I have not noticed what those might be. Perhaps someone with closer connections to them can enlighten me.
I would say that “conservatives” and “liberals” generally disagree on how we are obliged toward each other. Where they agree (and disagree with the libertarians) is that we ARE obliged toward each other.
As I understand it, the libertarian view is that all “obligations” towards others are strictly matters of convenience. At least, it they do hold some obligations towards others to be real, I have not noticed what those might be. Perhaps someone with closer connections to them can enlighten me.
I would say that “conservatives” and “liberals” generally disagree on how we are obliged toward each other. Where they agree (and disagree with the libertarians) is that we ARE obliged toward each other.
As I understand it, the libertarian view is that all “obligations” towards others are strictly matters of convenience. At least, it they do hold some obligations towards others to be real, I have not noticed what those might be. Perhaps someone with closer connections to them can enlighten me.
Maggie was simply trying to appropriate “society” as a term of art. Or more accurately, to foist the term of art on to liberals — the point being to sneer at liberals, not at the “living tapestry” that she goes on to define exactly as any literate person (liberal or conservative) would expect a dictionary to define the ordinary word “society”.
I recognize the strategy, because I use it myself, as when I refer to “The Economy” or “The Free Market”. The caps are meant to convey the idea that some people use those terms as proper nouns. Like Thatcher, I am too subtle to openly suggest who I think those people might be.
Unlike Thatcher, I have never been so brazen as to declare that “There is no such thing as The Economy. There is a living tapestry, blah, blah, etc. etc.” But maybe that’s only because I’ve never been interviewed by a UK lifestyle magazine.
–TP
Maggie was simply trying to appropriate “society” as a term of art. Or more accurately, to foist the term of art on to liberals — the point being to sneer at liberals, not at the “living tapestry” that she goes on to define exactly as any literate person (liberal or conservative) would expect a dictionary to define the ordinary word “society”.
I recognize the strategy, because I use it myself, as when I refer to “The Economy” or “The Free Market”. The caps are meant to convey the idea that some people use those terms as proper nouns. Like Thatcher, I am too subtle to openly suggest who I think those people might be.
Unlike Thatcher, I have never been so brazen as to declare that “There is no such thing as The Economy. There is a living tapestry, blah, blah, etc. etc.” But maybe that’s only because I’ve never been interviewed by a UK lifestyle magazine.
–TP
Maggie was simply trying to appropriate “society” as a term of art. Or more accurately, to foist the term of art on to liberals — the point being to sneer at liberals, not at the “living tapestry” that she goes on to define exactly as any literate person (liberal or conservative) would expect a dictionary to define the ordinary word “society”.
I recognize the strategy, because I use it myself, as when I refer to “The Economy” or “The Free Market”. The caps are meant to convey the idea that some people use those terms as proper nouns. Like Thatcher, I am too subtle to openly suggest who I think those people might be.
Unlike Thatcher, I have never been so brazen as to declare that “There is no such thing as The Economy. There is a living tapestry, blah, blah, etc. etc.” But maybe that’s only because I’ve never been interviewed by a UK lifestyle magazine.
–TP
I think the primary objection is to the idea that government is THE instrument by which a society manages its common life. An integral instrument, sure, but THE instrument? Monopoly!
I think the primary objection is to the idea that government is THE instrument by which a society manages its common life. An integral instrument, sure, but THE instrument? Monopoly!
I think the primary objection is to the idea that government is THE instrument by which a society manages its common life. An integral instrument, sure, but THE instrument? Monopoly!
This is the part just before the famous line:
I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society?
Standard conservative preface to The Big Point.
This is the part just before the famous line:
I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society?
Standard conservative preface to The Big Point.
This is the part just before the famous line:
I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society?
Standard conservative preface to The Big Point.
I suspect that the poison pill in Thatcher’s definition of the “living tapestry” is the phrase “help by our own efforts” the unfortunate, i.e., deliberately excluding any collective effort as organized through government. Which brings us back to the OP’s point about the purpose of government, which Thatcher resented and resisted.
I suspect that the poison pill in Thatcher’s definition of the “living tapestry” is the phrase “help by our own efforts” the unfortunate, i.e., deliberately excluding any collective effort as organized through government. Which brings us back to the OP’s point about the purpose of government, which Thatcher resented and resisted.
I suspect that the poison pill in Thatcher’s definition of the “living tapestry” is the phrase “help by our own efforts” the unfortunate, i.e., deliberately excluding any collective effort as organized through government. Which brings us back to the OP’s point about the purpose of government, which Thatcher resented and resisted.
I find it interesting that some conservatives want to see a lot of government – particularly that pertaining to welfare – removed and replaced by charitable efforts.
But what is this, but ducking out of their own obligations towards the poor and needy, while still requiring the poor and needy to do their part?
I find it interesting that some conservatives want to see a lot of government – particularly that pertaining to welfare – removed and replaced by charitable efforts.
But what is this, but ducking out of their own obligations towards the poor and needy, while still requiring the poor and needy to do their part?
I find it interesting that some conservatives want to see a lot of government – particularly that pertaining to welfare – removed and replaced by charitable efforts.
But what is this, but ducking out of their own obligations towards the poor and needy, while still requiring the poor and needy to do their part?
“Which makes me then ask, well what the hell is government if it is not the instrument by which a society manages its common life?”
A protection racket with the public school system for a PR firm, strikes me as a reasonable answer to this question.
But assuming this isn’t an entirely fair answer, or at least not a complete answer, I think the part of that question I’d have to take exception to is that “the”. As it apparently denies that “society” has any OTHER instruments available. Which leads us into sanbikinoraion’s question.
San, aren’t you assuming, in your question, that the people who advocate that welfare be replaced with charity aren’t donating to charity? Research into this question has demonstrated time and again that conservatives, much to the violation of liberal stereotypes, donate a considerably larger percentage of their income to charity than do liberals.
Meanwhile, given the reality that, with a progressive income tax, the vast majority of liberals aren’t paying a proportionate share of the cost of government, wouldn’t it be perfectly fair to say that, by advocating welfare funded by OTHER people’s taxes, instead of charity funded by their own donations, it is liberals who are ducking out of their own obligations towards the poor and needy? Rather than the conservatives, who are personally signing checks to charities?
“Which makes me then ask, well what the hell is government if it is not the instrument by which a society manages its common life?”
A protection racket with the public school system for a PR firm, strikes me as a reasonable answer to this question.
But assuming this isn’t an entirely fair answer, or at least not a complete answer, I think the part of that question I’d have to take exception to is that “the”. As it apparently denies that “society” has any OTHER instruments available. Which leads us into sanbikinoraion’s question.
San, aren’t you assuming, in your question, that the people who advocate that welfare be replaced with charity aren’t donating to charity? Research into this question has demonstrated time and again that conservatives, much to the violation of liberal stereotypes, donate a considerably larger percentage of their income to charity than do liberals.
Meanwhile, given the reality that, with a progressive income tax, the vast majority of liberals aren’t paying a proportionate share of the cost of government, wouldn’t it be perfectly fair to say that, by advocating welfare funded by OTHER people’s taxes, instead of charity funded by their own donations, it is liberals who are ducking out of their own obligations towards the poor and needy? Rather than the conservatives, who are personally signing checks to charities?
“Which makes me then ask, well what the hell is government if it is not the instrument by which a society manages its common life?”
A protection racket with the public school system for a PR firm, strikes me as a reasonable answer to this question.
But assuming this isn’t an entirely fair answer, or at least not a complete answer, I think the part of that question I’d have to take exception to is that “the”. As it apparently denies that “society” has any OTHER instruments available. Which leads us into sanbikinoraion’s question.
San, aren’t you assuming, in your question, that the people who advocate that welfare be replaced with charity aren’t donating to charity? Research into this question has demonstrated time and again that conservatives, much to the violation of liberal stereotypes, donate a considerably larger percentage of their income to charity than do liberals.
Meanwhile, given the reality that, with a progressive income tax, the vast majority of liberals aren’t paying a proportionate share of the cost of government, wouldn’t it be perfectly fair to say that, by advocating welfare funded by OTHER people’s taxes, instead of charity funded by their own donations, it is liberals who are ducking out of their own obligations towards the poor and needy? Rather than the conservatives, who are personally signing checks to charities?
well what the hell is government if it is not the instrument by which a society manages its common life?
it’s nothing else, except where it’s prone to all of the faults and perversions that are inherent in all people. and since government is merely a collection of people, that is to be expected.
well what the hell is government if it is not the instrument by which a society manages its common life?
it’s nothing else, except where it’s prone to all of the faults and perversions that are inherent in all people. and since government is merely a collection of people, that is to be expected.
well what the hell is government if it is not the instrument by which a society manages its common life?
it’s nothing else, except where it’s prone to all of the faults and perversions that are inherent in all people. and since government is merely a collection of people, that is to be expected.
If you were to say “an instrument”, I might not have a problem with the statement. “The” instrument, I have to take violent exception to, because of the implication that it’s the only one.
This is, I think, one of the worst things I can say about government: Society is rather like a climax forest, a fantasically complex web of naturally evolved institutions. When government decides to get into an area, all that get wiped out, in favor of a government monoculture. Like cutting down the forest, and planting a tree farm.
Even if you want to, once you’ve cut down the forest, you can’t put it back by just cutting down the tree farm. You have, irreversibly, lost all that evolved complexity. And, even if the tree farm turns out not to work well, there’s no going back in the short run, and going back in the long run is going to be a long, hard, and complex slog.
Stop cutting the damn forests down.
If you were to say “an instrument”, I might not have a problem with the statement. “The” instrument, I have to take violent exception to, because of the implication that it’s the only one.
This is, I think, one of the worst things I can say about government: Society is rather like a climax forest, a fantasically complex web of naturally evolved institutions. When government decides to get into an area, all that get wiped out, in favor of a government monoculture. Like cutting down the forest, and planting a tree farm.
Even if you want to, once you’ve cut down the forest, you can’t put it back by just cutting down the tree farm. You have, irreversibly, lost all that evolved complexity. And, even if the tree farm turns out not to work well, there’s no going back in the short run, and going back in the long run is going to be a long, hard, and complex slog.
Stop cutting the damn forests down.
If you were to say “an instrument”, I might not have a problem with the statement. “The” instrument, I have to take violent exception to, because of the implication that it’s the only one.
This is, I think, one of the worst things I can say about government: Society is rather like a climax forest, a fantasically complex web of naturally evolved institutions. When government decides to get into an area, all that get wiped out, in favor of a government monoculture. Like cutting down the forest, and planting a tree farm.
Even if you want to, once you’ve cut down the forest, you can’t put it back by just cutting down the tree farm. You have, irreversibly, lost all that evolved complexity. And, even if the tree farm turns out not to work well, there’s no going back in the short run, and going back in the long run is going to be a long, hard, and complex slog.
Stop cutting the damn forests down.
“Stop cutting the damn forests down.”
Tree hugger.
Hippie .
Environmental wacko extremist.
Spotted owl outside agitator.
Job destroyer.
Smokey the Bear lover
Anti-development progress stopper
Lumber Liquidator liquidator
Carbon dioxide hater
Rainforest- loving parade rainer-on ruiner
Purple people eating poplar planter
Regulating redwood redistributionist
Reforestation fanatic
Anti-Christmas fir tree farm multiculturalist
Al gore enabler
I love this internet thingy.
“Stop cutting the damn forests down.”
Tree hugger.
Hippie .
Environmental wacko extremist.
Spotted owl outside agitator.
Job destroyer.
Smokey the Bear lover
Anti-development progress stopper
Lumber Liquidator liquidator
Carbon dioxide hater
Rainforest- loving parade rainer-on ruiner
Purple people eating poplar planter
Regulating redwood redistributionist
Reforestation fanatic
Anti-Christmas fir tree farm multiculturalist
Al gore enabler
I love this internet thingy.
“Stop cutting the damn forests down.”
Tree hugger.
Hippie .
Environmental wacko extremist.
Spotted owl outside agitator.
Job destroyer.
Smokey the Bear lover
Anti-development progress stopper
Lumber Liquidator liquidator
Carbon dioxide hater
Rainforest- loving parade rainer-on ruiner
Purple people eating poplar planter
Regulating redwood redistributionist
Reforestation fanatic
Anti-Christmas fir tree farm multiculturalist
Al gore enabler
I love this internet thingy.
“Tree hugger.
Hippie .
Environmental wacko extremist.”
Yup, that’s me. Used to live in the country, where I was gradually turning an abandoned farm into a forest. I miss the loon that used to visit my pond.
“Tree hugger.
Hippie .
Environmental wacko extremist.”
Yup, that’s me. Used to live in the country, where I was gradually turning an abandoned farm into a forest. I miss the loon that used to visit my pond.
“Tree hugger.
Hippie .
Environmental wacko extremist.”
Yup, that’s me. Used to live in the country, where I was gradually turning an abandoned farm into a forest. I miss the loon that used to visit my pond.
In the 2000 election campaign I welcomed the pharase “compassionate conservatism”‘ as it then was supposed to mean that conservatives thought there were better ways to raise the poor out of poverty than cold impersonal government programs. Typically they advocated faith based programs. I didn’t agree with the argument, but I liked the apparent sincerity of people wanting to help the poor–the debate would be over the best method. I didn’t trust Bush, but approved of the rhetoric.
As it turned out, it was largely a fraud and there was a Christian in the Bush Administrtion who became disillusioned and wrote a book about it, but I’ve forgotten his name. And nowadays the Republican Party seems back to plain old contempt for poor people, with any compassion a distinct after-thought at best.
In the 2000 election campaign I welcomed the pharase “compassionate conservatism”‘ as it then was supposed to mean that conservatives thought there were better ways to raise the poor out of poverty than cold impersonal government programs. Typically they advocated faith based programs. I didn’t agree with the argument, but I liked the apparent sincerity of people wanting to help the poor–the debate would be over the best method. I didn’t trust Bush, but approved of the rhetoric.
As it turned out, it was largely a fraud and there was a Christian in the Bush Administrtion who became disillusioned and wrote a book about it, but I’ve forgotten his name. And nowadays the Republican Party seems back to plain old contempt for poor people, with any compassion a distinct after-thought at best.
In the 2000 election campaign I welcomed the pharase “compassionate conservatism”‘ as it then was supposed to mean that conservatives thought there were better ways to raise the poor out of poverty than cold impersonal government programs. Typically they advocated faith based programs. I didn’t agree with the argument, but I liked the apparent sincerity of people wanting to help the poor–the debate would be over the best method. I didn’t trust Bush, but approved of the rhetoric.
As it turned out, it was largely a fraud and there was a Christian in the Bush Administrtion who became disillusioned and wrote a book about it, but I’ve forgotten his name. And nowadays the Republican Party seems back to plain old contempt for poor people, with any compassion a distinct after-thought at best.
I love the woods.
I love the woods.
I love the woods.
If my IPad spent less time substituting one word for another and more time correcting actual mistakes, I’ d think better of it. Administration, not Administrtion.
If my IPad spent less time substituting one word for another and more time correcting actual mistakes, I’ d think better of it. Administration, not Administrtion.
If my IPad spent less time substituting one word for another and more time correcting actual mistakes, I’ d think better of it. Administration, not Administrtion.
When the other loons hear me coming, they make way for the looniet loon of them all.
When the other loons hear me coming, they make way for the looniet loon of them all.
When the other loons hear me coming, they make way for the looniet loon of them all.
Brett: ” with a progressive income tax, the vast majority of liberals aren’t paying a proportionate share of the cost of government,”
Assuming facts not in evidence.
(OR a severely skewed definition of “proportionate.”)
Brett: ” with a progressive income tax, the vast majority of liberals aren’t paying a proportionate share of the cost of government,”
Assuming facts not in evidence.
(OR a severely skewed definition of “proportionate.”)
Brett: ” with a progressive income tax, the vast majority of liberals aren’t paying a proportionate share of the cost of government,”
Assuming facts not in evidence.
(OR a severely skewed definition of “proportionate.”)
Regarding charity supplanting government spending for the poor, the unemployed, and the sick, and the old, there is nothing stopping private actors from not firing and laying people off, providing cradle to grave medical coverage on a par with Medicare, Medicaid, etc. and greatly expanding the medical workforce, not to mention the need for orphan drug designations.
There never was, even before those programs were instituted by government after nearly two centuries of cooling our heels waiting for charity to do the job.
But every time charity was encouraged, even via the tax code, we were told
charity begins at home.
If charity was up to the job, there wouldn’t be collection agencies and the constant requirement for return on investment.
The entire charity gambit, other than supplementing around the edges of what is required, is horsesh$t
Regarding charity supplanting government spending for the poor, the unemployed, and the sick, and the old, there is nothing stopping private actors from not firing and laying people off, providing cradle to grave medical coverage on a par with Medicare, Medicaid, etc. and greatly expanding the medical workforce, not to mention the need for orphan drug designations.
There never was, even before those programs were instituted by government after nearly two centuries of cooling our heels waiting for charity to do the job.
But every time charity was encouraged, even via the tax code, we were told
charity begins at home.
If charity was up to the job, there wouldn’t be collection agencies and the constant requirement for return on investment.
The entire charity gambit, other than supplementing around the edges of what is required, is horsesh$t
Regarding charity supplanting government spending for the poor, the unemployed, and the sick, and the old, there is nothing stopping private actors from not firing and laying people off, providing cradle to grave medical coverage on a par with Medicare, Medicaid, etc. and greatly expanding the medical workforce, not to mention the need for orphan drug designations.
There never was, even before those programs were instituted by government after nearly two centuries of cooling our heels waiting for charity to do the job.
But every time charity was encouraged, even via the tax code, we were told
charity begins at home.
If charity was up to the job, there wouldn’t be collection agencies and the constant requirement for return on investment.
The entire charity gambit, other than supplementing around the edges of what is required, is horsesh$t
Society is rather like a climax forest, a fantasically complex web of naturally evolved institutions. When government decides to get into an area, all that get wiped out, in favor of a government monoculture.
When government decides? What sort of beings compose the government, as opposed to the sort of beings who compose those naturally evolved institutions? Has the institution of government unnaturally evolved?
Society is rather like a climax forest, a fantasically complex web of naturally evolved institutions. When government decides to get into an area, all that get wiped out, in favor of a government monoculture.
When government decides? What sort of beings compose the government, as opposed to the sort of beings who compose those naturally evolved institutions? Has the institution of government unnaturally evolved?
Society is rather like a climax forest, a fantasically complex web of naturally evolved institutions. When government decides to get into an area, all that get wiped out, in favor of a government monoculture.
When government decides? What sort of beings compose the government, as opposed to the sort of beings who compose those naturally evolved institutions? Has the institution of government unnaturally evolved?
“OR a severely skewed definition of “proportionate.”
You know, “proportionate” is a mathematical term. I’m not using a “skewed” definition of it, I’m using the actual definition.
The top 20% of earners in America pay over half of the taxes. So, even were I to assume that the upper half of the income distribution were all Democrats, it’s true that over half of all Democrats would be paying less than half of the taxes.
“Let’s you and him help the poor!” That’s what you’re saying, when you want the poor supported by the government, AND a progressive tax system. Unless maybe you’re a millionaire.
“OR a severely skewed definition of “proportionate.”
You know, “proportionate” is a mathematical term. I’m not using a “skewed” definition of it, I’m using the actual definition.
The top 20% of earners in America pay over half of the taxes. So, even were I to assume that the upper half of the income distribution were all Democrats, it’s true that over half of all Democrats would be paying less than half of the taxes.
“Let’s you and him help the poor!” That’s what you’re saying, when you want the poor supported by the government, AND a progressive tax system. Unless maybe you’re a millionaire.
“OR a severely skewed definition of “proportionate.”
You know, “proportionate” is a mathematical term. I’m not using a “skewed” definition of it, I’m using the actual definition.
The top 20% of earners in America pay over half of the taxes. So, even were I to assume that the upper half of the income distribution were all Democrats, it’s true that over half of all Democrats would be paying less than half of the taxes.
“Let’s you and him help the poor!” That’s what you’re saying, when you want the poor supported by the government, AND a progressive tax system. Unless maybe you’re a millionaire.
Brett says: A protection racket with the public school system for a PR firm
Paul Krugman calls it “An insurance company with a sideline in military operations”.
PK is explicitly referring to the federal government. BB seems to be as well, most of the time, although he invariably speaks of The Government as a sort of reified Platonic form, like The Free Market, or even Society. I mean, if the public schools are operated by The Government, and the Air Force is operated by The Government, then “The Government” is a pretty broad term of art.
–TP
Brett says: A protection racket with the public school system for a PR firm
Paul Krugman calls it “An insurance company with a sideline in military operations”.
PK is explicitly referring to the federal government. BB seems to be as well, most of the time, although he invariably speaks of The Government as a sort of reified Platonic form, like The Free Market, or even Society. I mean, if the public schools are operated by The Government, and the Air Force is operated by The Government, then “The Government” is a pretty broad term of art.
–TP
Brett says: A protection racket with the public school system for a PR firm
Paul Krugman calls it “An insurance company with a sideline in military operations”.
PK is explicitly referring to the federal government. BB seems to be as well, most of the time, although he invariably speaks of The Government as a sort of reified Platonic form, like The Free Market, or even Society. I mean, if the public schools are operated by The Government, and the Air Force is operated by The Government, then “The Government” is a pretty broad term of art.
–TP
One of the reasons to help the poor goes beyond the immediate moral obligation one might feel. A larger aspect is that keeping people out of utter desperation makes them more likely to be able to help themselves in the longer term, reducing the need for others to provide their most basic survival needs for them in perpetuity.
Despite the presumption on some people’s part that Democrats are purposefully stringing along a permanent underclass to secure a voting block, the rationale is, at least in part, that you lift people to a point after which they lift themselves.
One of the reasons to help the poor goes beyond the immediate moral obligation one might feel. A larger aspect is that keeping people out of utter desperation makes them more likely to be able to help themselves in the longer term, reducing the need for others to provide their most basic survival needs for them in perpetuity.
Despite the presumption on some people’s part that Democrats are purposefully stringing along a permanent underclass to secure a voting block, the rationale is, at least in part, that you lift people to a point after which they lift themselves.
One of the reasons to help the poor goes beyond the immediate moral obligation one might feel. A larger aspect is that keeping people out of utter desperation makes them more likely to be able to help themselves in the longer term, reducing the need for others to provide their most basic survival needs for them in perpetuity.
Despite the presumption on some people’s part that Democrats are purposefully stringing along a permanent underclass to secure a voting block, the rationale is, at least in part, that you lift people to a point after which they lift themselves.
the difference in giving is not due to liberalism or conservatism, it’s due to religiosity.
the difference in giving is not due to liberalism or conservatism, it’s due to religiosity.
the difference in giving is not due to liberalism or conservatism, it’s due to religiosity.
New Hampshire, meanwhile, is apparently living up to its “live free or die” motto. The state ranked at the bottom of the generosity list, with just 1.74 percent of residents giving money to charity.
Libertarians…
New Hampshire, meanwhile, is apparently living up to its “live free or die” motto. The state ranked at the bottom of the generosity list, with just 1.74 percent of residents giving money to charity.
Libertarians…
New Hampshire, meanwhile, is apparently living up to its “live free or die” motto. The state ranked at the bottom of the generosity list, with just 1.74 percent of residents giving money to charity.
Libertarians…
My favorite quote from cleek’s link:
New Hampshire, meanwhile, is apparently living up to its “live free or die” motto. The state ranked at the bottom of the generosity list, with just 1.74 percent of residents giving money to charity.
as to this claim:
the difference in giving is not due to liberalism or conservatism
There really isn’t the data to make that claim in the article. None of the data described in the article (and the link to the study appears broken) really seems to isolate the effects of religion from political leaning.
We have three correlations…conservative regions tend to claim increased charity on their tax returns, religious regions tend to also do so, and there is a good deal of overlap between conservative and religious.
Identifying which, if either, of those is causative and to what extent can not be shown by that data.
My favorite quote from cleek’s link:
New Hampshire, meanwhile, is apparently living up to its “live free or die” motto. The state ranked at the bottom of the generosity list, with just 1.74 percent of residents giving money to charity.
as to this claim:
the difference in giving is not due to liberalism or conservatism
There really isn’t the data to make that claim in the article. None of the data described in the article (and the link to the study appears broken) really seems to isolate the effects of religion from political leaning.
We have three correlations…conservative regions tend to claim increased charity on their tax returns, religious regions tend to also do so, and there is a good deal of overlap between conservative and religious.
Identifying which, if either, of those is causative and to what extent can not be shown by that data.
My favorite quote from cleek’s link:
New Hampshire, meanwhile, is apparently living up to its “live free or die” motto. The state ranked at the bottom of the generosity list, with just 1.74 percent of residents giving money to charity.
as to this claim:
the difference in giving is not due to liberalism or conservatism
There really isn’t the data to make that claim in the article. None of the data described in the article (and the link to the study appears broken) really seems to isolate the effects of religion from political leaning.
We have three correlations…conservative regions tend to claim increased charity on their tax returns, religious regions tend to also do so, and there is a good deal of overlap between conservative and religious.
Identifying which, if either, of those is causative and to what extent can not be shown by that data.
Identifying which, if either, of those is causative and to what extent can not be shown by that data.
look at Utah. LDS requires 10% tithing. and not surprisingly, Utah averages over 10%. also, Utah and Idaho (also heavily Mormon) are the only two non-Bible belt states in the top ten.
also:
Identifying which, if either, of those is causative and to what extent can not be shown by that data.
look at Utah. LDS requires 10% tithing. and not surprisingly, Utah averages over 10%. also, Utah and Idaho (also heavily Mormon) are the only two non-Bible belt states in the top ten.
also:
Identifying which, if either, of those is causative and to what extent can not be shown by that data.
look at Utah. LDS requires 10% tithing. and not surprisingly, Utah averages over 10%. also, Utah and Idaho (also heavily Mormon) are the only two non-Bible belt states in the top ten.
also:
“Which makes me then ask, well what the hell is government if it is not the instrument by which a society manages its common life?”
A protection racket with the public school system for a PR firm, strikes me as a reasonable answer to this question.
As succinct a statement of the libertarian worldview as I can remember encountering. And for an authoritarian government, it might even have some merit.
But for anything resembling a democracy, it amounts to saying that nobody should ever have to accept anything that they do not personally support. No matter if everybody else in the world thinks differently. Which, taken to its logical extreme, means that I should be free to kill my neighbor and raze his house, should I want to improve my view in that direction. (Of course, he is free to do the same, if he can get there first.) Your morals may keep you from doing so. But the philosophy clearly does not.
“Which makes me then ask, well what the hell is government if it is not the instrument by which a society manages its common life?”
A protection racket with the public school system for a PR firm, strikes me as a reasonable answer to this question.
As succinct a statement of the libertarian worldview as I can remember encountering. And for an authoritarian government, it might even have some merit.
But for anything resembling a democracy, it amounts to saying that nobody should ever have to accept anything that they do not personally support. No matter if everybody else in the world thinks differently. Which, taken to its logical extreme, means that I should be free to kill my neighbor and raze his house, should I want to improve my view in that direction. (Of course, he is free to do the same, if he can get there first.) Your morals may keep you from doing so. But the philosophy clearly does not.
“Which makes me then ask, well what the hell is government if it is not the instrument by which a society manages its common life?”
A protection racket with the public school system for a PR firm, strikes me as a reasonable answer to this question.
As succinct a statement of the libertarian worldview as I can remember encountering. And for an authoritarian government, it might even have some merit.
But for anything resembling a democracy, it amounts to saying that nobody should ever have to accept anything that they do not personally support. No matter if everybody else in the world thinks differently. Which, taken to its logical extreme, means that I should be free to kill my neighbor and raze his house, should I want to improve my view in that direction. (Of course, he is free to do the same, if he can get there first.) Your morals may keep you from doing so. But the philosophy clearly does not.
LDS requires 10% tithing.
So, what is religion (and not just this one) but an extortion racket, with Sunday School as a PR division? Seems like a logical parallel to the view of government….
LDS requires 10% tithing.
So, what is religion (and not just this one) but an extortion racket, with Sunday School as a PR division? Seems like a logical parallel to the view of government….
LDS requires 10% tithing.
So, what is religion (and not just this one) but an extortion racket, with Sunday School as a PR division? Seems like a logical parallel to the view of government….
“But for anything resembling a democracy, it amounts to saying that nobody should ever have to accept anything that they do not personally support.”
No, it amounts to saying that, if don’t pay taxes, the government doesn’t simply deprive you of services, it affirmatively attacks you. Protection rackets aren’t defined by not offering actual protection, because they frequently do find it expedient to do that. They’re defined by what happens to you when you decide not to buy protection.
If you find out you were buying protection from THEM, it’s a protection racket.
“But for anything resembling a democracy, it amounts to saying that nobody should ever have to accept anything that they do not personally support.”
No, it amounts to saying that, if don’t pay taxes, the government doesn’t simply deprive you of services, it affirmatively attacks you. Protection rackets aren’t defined by not offering actual protection, because they frequently do find it expedient to do that. They’re defined by what happens to you when you decide not to buy protection.
If you find out you were buying protection from THEM, it’s a protection racket.
“But for anything resembling a democracy, it amounts to saying that nobody should ever have to accept anything that they do not personally support.”
No, it amounts to saying that, if don’t pay taxes, the government doesn’t simply deprive you of services, it affirmatively attacks you. Protection rackets aren’t defined by not offering actual protection, because they frequently do find it expedient to do that. They’re defined by what happens to you when you decide not to buy protection.
If you find out you were buying protection from THEM, it’s a protection racket.
OK, but if you don’t pay taxes you must (to be true to your views) also refrain from using anything that is paid for by taxes. Including the roads. Including clean water. Including clean air. Because, after all, you haven’t paid for it.**
But you don’t do that, do you? Instead, you seem to want to get to pick and choose which functions of government you pay for. While ignoring the fact that policing a policy of “only use what you paid for” requires a far larger government than we currently have. And far more control over all of our lives.
** And that would have to include control of the borders and immigration, wouldn’t it?
OK, but if you don’t pay taxes you must (to be true to your views) also refrain from using anything that is paid for by taxes. Including the roads. Including clean water. Including clean air. Because, after all, you haven’t paid for it.**
But you don’t do that, do you? Instead, you seem to want to get to pick and choose which functions of government you pay for. While ignoring the fact that policing a policy of “only use what you paid for” requires a far larger government than we currently have. And far more control over all of our lives.
** And that would have to include control of the borders and immigration, wouldn’t it?
OK, but if you don’t pay taxes you must (to be true to your views) also refrain from using anything that is paid for by taxes. Including the roads. Including clean water. Including clean air. Because, after all, you haven’t paid for it.**
But you don’t do that, do you? Instead, you seem to want to get to pick and choose which functions of government you pay for. While ignoring the fact that policing a policy of “only use what you paid for” requires a far larger government than we currently have. And far more control over all of our lives.
** And that would have to include control of the borders and immigration, wouldn’t it?
look at Utah.
First off, even assuming Utah is uniformly tithing mormons, the Provo-Orem metro rate of 13.9% still leads to 3.9% that isn’t explained by tithing. Additionally, not all Utahians are mormons, and not all mormons tithe (although my understanding is most do).
Second, none of that actually contradicts what I said. To support your point, you linked another article about the same study with more detail. One of the first paragraphs:
The reasons for the discrepancies are rooted in part in each area’s political philosophy about the role of government versus charity: At least 13 states now offer special tax benefits to charity donors, often in the hopes of stimulating giving at the same time that lawmakers are adopting big cuts in government services.
Right before the top of your quote:
Tax incentives matter. State policies that promote giving can make a significant difference and in some cases are influencing the rankings.
and right below the bottom of your quote:
In The Chronicle’s study, New Hampshire rises from last to 38th—still in the bottom quartile—after the adjustment to remove religious giving.
More to the point, the article overall supports the view that many factors influence charitable giving, and doesn’t, by any means, provide enough data or analysis to support your original assertion.
look at Utah.
First off, even assuming Utah is uniformly tithing mormons, the Provo-Orem metro rate of 13.9% still leads to 3.9% that isn’t explained by tithing. Additionally, not all Utahians are mormons, and not all mormons tithe (although my understanding is most do).
Second, none of that actually contradicts what I said. To support your point, you linked another article about the same study with more detail. One of the first paragraphs:
The reasons for the discrepancies are rooted in part in each area’s political philosophy about the role of government versus charity: At least 13 states now offer special tax benefits to charity donors, often in the hopes of stimulating giving at the same time that lawmakers are adopting big cuts in government services.
Right before the top of your quote:
Tax incentives matter. State policies that promote giving can make a significant difference and in some cases are influencing the rankings.
and right below the bottom of your quote:
In The Chronicle’s study, New Hampshire rises from last to 38th—still in the bottom quartile—after the adjustment to remove religious giving.
More to the point, the article overall supports the view that many factors influence charitable giving, and doesn’t, by any means, provide enough data or analysis to support your original assertion.
look at Utah.
First off, even assuming Utah is uniformly tithing mormons, the Provo-Orem metro rate of 13.9% still leads to 3.9% that isn’t explained by tithing. Additionally, not all Utahians are mormons, and not all mormons tithe (although my understanding is most do).
Second, none of that actually contradicts what I said. To support your point, you linked another article about the same study with more detail. One of the first paragraphs:
The reasons for the discrepancies are rooted in part in each area’s political philosophy about the role of government versus charity: At least 13 states now offer special tax benefits to charity donors, often in the hopes of stimulating giving at the same time that lawmakers are adopting big cuts in government services.
Right before the top of your quote:
Tax incentives matter. State policies that promote giving can make a significant difference and in some cases are influencing the rankings.
and right below the bottom of your quote:
In The Chronicle’s study, New Hampshire rises from last to 38th—still in the bottom quartile—after the adjustment to remove religious giving.
More to the point, the article overall supports the view that many factors influence charitable giving, and doesn’t, by any means, provide enough data or analysis to support your original assertion.
Property is theft!
-discuss.
(bobbyp imitation of Charles WT-I hope this is not a copyright infringement! :))
Property is theft!
-discuss.
(bobbyp imitation of Charles WT-I hope this is not a copyright infringement! :))
Property is theft!
-discuss.
(bobbyp imitation of Charles WT-I hope this is not a copyright infringement! :))
still leads to 3.9% that isn’t explained by tithing
i certainly never claimed it was all tithing.
Additionally, not all Utahians are mormons, and not all mormons tithe
which are a couple of additional things i didn’t claim.
To support your point, you linked another article about the same study with more detail
entirely true! a point of agreement!
and here i thought you were just arguing for the sake of arguing. 🙂
but that bit about NH pretty much ties it up for me. if you exclude religious charity, NH, NY, and PA jump way up in the lists and a lot of the Bible belt and Mormon states fall back towards the middle. which suggests pretty strongly that religious giving (which is definitely not all about helping the homeless and hungry) is a big reason some states look like big charitable givers and others look stingy.
still leads to 3.9% that isn’t explained by tithing
i certainly never claimed it was all tithing.
Additionally, not all Utahians are mormons, and not all mormons tithe
which are a couple of additional things i didn’t claim.
To support your point, you linked another article about the same study with more detail
entirely true! a point of agreement!
and here i thought you were just arguing for the sake of arguing. 🙂
but that bit about NH pretty much ties it up for me. if you exclude religious charity, NH, NY, and PA jump way up in the lists and a lot of the Bible belt and Mormon states fall back towards the middle. which suggests pretty strongly that religious giving (which is definitely not all about helping the homeless and hungry) is a big reason some states look like big charitable givers and others look stingy.
still leads to 3.9% that isn’t explained by tithing
i certainly never claimed it was all tithing.
Additionally, not all Utahians are mormons, and not all mormons tithe
which are a couple of additional things i didn’t claim.
To support your point, you linked another article about the same study with more detail
entirely true! a point of agreement!
and here i thought you were just arguing for the sake of arguing. 🙂
but that bit about NH pretty much ties it up for me. if you exclude religious charity, NH, NY, and PA jump way up in the lists and a lot of the Bible belt and Mormon states fall back towards the middle. which suggests pretty strongly that religious giving (which is definitely not all about helping the homeless and hungry) is a big reason some states look like big charitable givers and others look stingy.
Charity giving, money and time, is the last ditch support for the most in need. To characterize it as bs is a crock. Until they weren’t, Catholic hospitals were healthcare for the poor. Food banks, church and not, feed millions every day. Each of those charities more closely reflects our society than any government. Hospice volunteers help the elderly. Pine Street Inn volunteers look for the homeless every winter night, to distribute food and blankets, on the street. These types of charities make a difference, every day.
Charity giving, money and time, is the last ditch support for the most in need. To characterize it as bs is a crock. Until they weren’t, Catholic hospitals were healthcare for the poor. Food banks, church and not, feed millions every day. Each of those charities more closely reflects our society than any government. Hospice volunteers help the elderly. Pine Street Inn volunteers look for the homeless every winter night, to distribute food and blankets, on the street. These types of charities make a difference, every day.
Charity giving, money and time, is the last ditch support for the most in need. To characterize it as bs is a crock. Until they weren’t, Catholic hospitals were healthcare for the poor. Food banks, church and not, feed millions every day. Each of those charities more closely reflects our society than any government. Hospice volunteers help the elderly. Pine Street Inn volunteers look for the homeless every winter night, to distribute food and blankets, on the street. These types of charities make a difference, every day.
totally OT, but is anyone else seeing this “vindicosuite” redirect thing when following links in or from this site?
Googling “vindicosuite” doesn’t give me the warm fuzzies.
totally OT, but is anyone else seeing this “vindicosuite” redirect thing when following links in or from this site?
Googling “vindicosuite” doesn’t give me the warm fuzzies.
totally OT, but is anyone else seeing this “vindicosuite” redirect thing when following links in or from this site?
Googling “vindicosuite” doesn’t give me the warm fuzzies.
cleek:
i certainly never claimed it was all tithing
The only claim I have an objection to is what I already quoted:
the difference in giving is not due to liberalism or conservatism
My apparent misunderstanding was that you were offering the additional examples from the second article to bolster that point, I was simply explaining why I didn’t find them sufficient in that regard.
Putting aside my apparent misunderstanding of your response, I’ll return to that assertion: It is not supported by the study you linked.
Indeed, I quoted sections of the article that specifically note political contributors to the data. To be clear, I’m not saying religion and religious giving doesn’t play a role, just that the article doesn’t actually rule out a political ideology as a contributor. Again, to be clear, I’m not arguing political ideology DOES, just that the article you linked doesn’t show that it doesn’t.
but that bit about NH pretty much ties it up for me.
Moving from dead last to still in the bottom quartile ties it up for you?
which is definitely not all about helping the homeless and hungry
Hey, one of many things *I* never claimed. 🙂
Although, all the food pantrys and soup kitchens I’ve volunteered in were run by religious organizations.
To try to avoid a long bout of talking past each other, I’d agree its pretty likely that giving to religions is (a) a large part of charitable giving and (b) membership with a religious organization likely explains a good chunk of charitable giving.
But what that study didn’t demonstrate was what you asserted. And further, given how heavily correlated religion and political ideology are, its a non-trivial matter to isolate the effects of those two factors.
cleek:
i certainly never claimed it was all tithing
The only claim I have an objection to is what I already quoted:
the difference in giving is not due to liberalism or conservatism
My apparent misunderstanding was that you were offering the additional examples from the second article to bolster that point, I was simply explaining why I didn’t find them sufficient in that regard.
Putting aside my apparent misunderstanding of your response, I’ll return to that assertion: It is not supported by the study you linked.
Indeed, I quoted sections of the article that specifically note political contributors to the data. To be clear, I’m not saying religion and religious giving doesn’t play a role, just that the article doesn’t actually rule out a political ideology as a contributor. Again, to be clear, I’m not arguing political ideology DOES, just that the article you linked doesn’t show that it doesn’t.
but that bit about NH pretty much ties it up for me.
Moving from dead last to still in the bottom quartile ties it up for you?
which is definitely not all about helping the homeless and hungry
Hey, one of many things *I* never claimed. 🙂
Although, all the food pantrys and soup kitchens I’ve volunteered in were run by religious organizations.
To try to avoid a long bout of talking past each other, I’d agree its pretty likely that giving to religions is (a) a large part of charitable giving and (b) membership with a religious organization likely explains a good chunk of charitable giving.
But what that study didn’t demonstrate was what you asserted. And further, given how heavily correlated religion and political ideology are, its a non-trivial matter to isolate the effects of those two factors.
cleek:
i certainly never claimed it was all tithing
The only claim I have an objection to is what I already quoted:
the difference in giving is not due to liberalism or conservatism
My apparent misunderstanding was that you were offering the additional examples from the second article to bolster that point, I was simply explaining why I didn’t find them sufficient in that regard.
Putting aside my apparent misunderstanding of your response, I’ll return to that assertion: It is not supported by the study you linked.
Indeed, I quoted sections of the article that specifically note political contributors to the data. To be clear, I’m not saying religion and religious giving doesn’t play a role, just that the article doesn’t actually rule out a political ideology as a contributor. Again, to be clear, I’m not arguing political ideology DOES, just that the article you linked doesn’t show that it doesn’t.
but that bit about NH pretty much ties it up for me.
Moving from dead last to still in the bottom quartile ties it up for you?
which is definitely not all about helping the homeless and hungry
Hey, one of many things *I* never claimed. 🙂
Although, all the food pantrys and soup kitchens I’ve volunteered in were run by religious organizations.
To try to avoid a long bout of talking past each other, I’d agree its pretty likely that giving to religions is (a) a large part of charitable giving and (b) membership with a religious organization likely explains a good chunk of charitable giving.
But what that study didn’t demonstrate was what you asserted. And further, given how heavily correlated religion and political ideology are, its a non-trivial matter to isolate the effects of those two factors.
Maggie was simply trying to appropriate “society” as a term of art
Standard conservative preface to The Big Point.
I suspect that the poison pill in Thatcher’s definition of the “living tapestry” is the phrase “help by our own efforts”
Agreed on all three points.
I was just pleased to find Thatcher the idea that humans were interconnected, and/or had any sort of mutual obligation, at all, whether expressed through public or private means.
I was also surprised to hear the pre-eminent UK conservative of her generation talk approvingly about things like grants to help people transition from welfare to employment, and disapprovingly about firing people without notice or severance.
Even if her concern in the last case extended mostly, or only, to people in government.
As always, I would be delighted to have the UK’s conservatives here in the US.
What I find lacking in Thatcher’s comments is any apparent sense that folks who are at a disadvantage – the “unfortunate” – might be in that place for reasons not of their own making, and outside of their control.
It’s not a lack of “good fortune” when deliberate decisions made, by others, result in your losing your job, or being unable to afford your home, or medical care, or any other necessary thing.
One man’s good idea is another man’s disaster. Interconnection works in all kinds of ways.
What I was mostly interested in was her sense that it is the interconnection of *people*, and the mutual obligations of *people*, that make up that mysterious thing that she avoids calling by its proper name, which is society.
There is such a thing as society, her whole interview is all about society and how and why it does or does not succeed in fulfilling the obligations we all bear toward each other. She clearly recognizes it as what it actually is, she just doesn’t want to utter the name.
For whatever reason.
What I would be interested in exploring further is the question of what our obligations actually are to each other.
What are they, how far do they extend, what do they include and exclude. Because that is really the basis of understanding what the terms of our public life should be.
As far as charity vs government, it’s utterly unclear to me how private charity will scale to the kinds of things we rely on government to address.
47% of Americans are on food stamps. Medical remedies involving major surgery, or chemo or radio therapies, cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Bake sales aren’t gonna do it.
As far as who gives more the charity, I really don’t give a crap. It’s clear to me that some of the difference has to do with the overlap of conservative and religious, and I’m not sure that religious tithing counts as “charity”. To me it’s more like dues you pay to belong to a club that you’re a member of.
Who knows, maybe the rest of the difference is explained by liberals not taking all of the deductions they’re entitled to.
Your guess is as good as mine.
I’d offer an opinion about “climax forests”, but the topic makes me too hot and sweaty. I’m afraid any comments I’d make would end up sounding like a “Dear Penthouse forum” letter.
What do we owe each other, as fellow members of a political and social community.
That’s what I want to understand.
Maggie was simply trying to appropriate “society” as a term of art
Standard conservative preface to The Big Point.
I suspect that the poison pill in Thatcher’s definition of the “living tapestry” is the phrase “help by our own efforts”
Agreed on all three points.
I was just pleased to find Thatcher the idea that humans were interconnected, and/or had any sort of mutual obligation, at all, whether expressed through public or private means.
I was also surprised to hear the pre-eminent UK conservative of her generation talk approvingly about things like grants to help people transition from welfare to employment, and disapprovingly about firing people without notice or severance.
Even if her concern in the last case extended mostly, or only, to people in government.
As always, I would be delighted to have the UK’s conservatives here in the US.
What I find lacking in Thatcher’s comments is any apparent sense that folks who are at a disadvantage – the “unfortunate” – might be in that place for reasons not of their own making, and outside of their control.
It’s not a lack of “good fortune” when deliberate decisions made, by others, result in your losing your job, or being unable to afford your home, or medical care, or any other necessary thing.
One man’s good idea is another man’s disaster. Interconnection works in all kinds of ways.
What I was mostly interested in was her sense that it is the interconnection of *people*, and the mutual obligations of *people*, that make up that mysterious thing that she avoids calling by its proper name, which is society.
There is such a thing as society, her whole interview is all about society and how and why it does or does not succeed in fulfilling the obligations we all bear toward each other. She clearly recognizes it as what it actually is, she just doesn’t want to utter the name.
For whatever reason.
What I would be interested in exploring further is the question of what our obligations actually are to each other.
What are they, how far do they extend, what do they include and exclude. Because that is really the basis of understanding what the terms of our public life should be.
As far as charity vs government, it’s utterly unclear to me how private charity will scale to the kinds of things we rely on government to address.
47% of Americans are on food stamps. Medical remedies involving major surgery, or chemo or radio therapies, cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Bake sales aren’t gonna do it.
As far as who gives more the charity, I really don’t give a crap. It’s clear to me that some of the difference has to do with the overlap of conservative and religious, and I’m not sure that religious tithing counts as “charity”. To me it’s more like dues you pay to belong to a club that you’re a member of.
Who knows, maybe the rest of the difference is explained by liberals not taking all of the deductions they’re entitled to.
Your guess is as good as mine.
I’d offer an opinion about “climax forests”, but the topic makes me too hot and sweaty. I’m afraid any comments I’d make would end up sounding like a “Dear Penthouse forum” letter.
What do we owe each other, as fellow members of a political and social community.
That’s what I want to understand.
Maggie was simply trying to appropriate “society” as a term of art
Standard conservative preface to The Big Point.
I suspect that the poison pill in Thatcher’s definition of the “living tapestry” is the phrase “help by our own efforts”
Agreed on all three points.
I was just pleased to find Thatcher the idea that humans were interconnected, and/or had any sort of mutual obligation, at all, whether expressed through public or private means.
I was also surprised to hear the pre-eminent UK conservative of her generation talk approvingly about things like grants to help people transition from welfare to employment, and disapprovingly about firing people without notice or severance.
Even if her concern in the last case extended mostly, or only, to people in government.
As always, I would be delighted to have the UK’s conservatives here in the US.
What I find lacking in Thatcher’s comments is any apparent sense that folks who are at a disadvantage – the “unfortunate” – might be in that place for reasons not of their own making, and outside of their control.
It’s not a lack of “good fortune” when deliberate decisions made, by others, result in your losing your job, or being unable to afford your home, or medical care, or any other necessary thing.
One man’s good idea is another man’s disaster. Interconnection works in all kinds of ways.
What I was mostly interested in was her sense that it is the interconnection of *people*, and the mutual obligations of *people*, that make up that mysterious thing that she avoids calling by its proper name, which is society.
There is such a thing as society, her whole interview is all about society and how and why it does or does not succeed in fulfilling the obligations we all bear toward each other. She clearly recognizes it as what it actually is, she just doesn’t want to utter the name.
For whatever reason.
What I would be interested in exploring further is the question of what our obligations actually are to each other.
What are they, how far do they extend, what do they include and exclude. Because that is really the basis of understanding what the terms of our public life should be.
As far as charity vs government, it’s utterly unclear to me how private charity will scale to the kinds of things we rely on government to address.
47% of Americans are on food stamps. Medical remedies involving major surgery, or chemo or radio therapies, cost tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Bake sales aren’t gonna do it.
As far as who gives more the charity, I really don’t give a crap. It’s clear to me that some of the difference has to do with the overlap of conservative and religious, and I’m not sure that religious tithing counts as “charity”. To me it’s more like dues you pay to belong to a club that you’re a member of.
Who knows, maybe the rest of the difference is explained by liberals not taking all of the deductions they’re entitled to.
Your guess is as good as mine.
I’d offer an opinion about “climax forests”, but the topic makes me too hot and sweaty. I’m afraid any comments I’d make would end up sounding like a “Dear Penthouse forum” letter.
What do we owe each other, as fellow members of a political and social community.
That’s what I want to understand.
“which suggests pretty strongly that religious giving (which is definitely not all about helping the homeless and hungry)”
I think you’re going to have to unpack that.
“Googling “vindicosuite” doesn’t give me the warm fuzzies.”
That’s putting it mildly, and, yes, I’ve been seeing that lately when clicking links at this site. Including links I created myself, and know quite well aren’t to there.
“which suggests pretty strongly that religious giving (which is definitely not all about helping the homeless and hungry)”
I think you’re going to have to unpack that.
“Googling “vindicosuite” doesn’t give me the warm fuzzies.”
That’s putting it mildly, and, yes, I’ve been seeing that lately when clicking links at this site. Including links I created myself, and know quite well aren’t to there.
“which suggests pretty strongly that religious giving (which is definitely not all about helping the homeless and hungry)”
I think you’re going to have to unpack that.
“Googling “vindicosuite” doesn’t give me the warm fuzzies.”
That’s putting it mildly, and, yes, I’ve been seeing that lately when clicking links at this site. Including links I created myself, and know quite well aren’t to there.
Moving from dead last to still in the bottom quartile ties it up for you?
NH, NY, PA, etc..
Moving from dead last to still in the bottom quartile ties it up for you?
NH, NY, PA, etc..
Moving from dead last to still in the bottom quartile ties it up for you?
NH, NY, PA, etc..
I think you’re going to have to unpack that.
it takes a lot of tithing to keep church leaders rollin in the dough, and to gold plate the domes and build those sparkly new church buildings. and none of that does a thing to feed hungry people.
I think you’re going to have to unpack that.
it takes a lot of tithing to keep church leaders rollin in the dough, and to gold plate the domes and build those sparkly new church buildings. and none of that does a thing to feed hungry people.
I think you’re going to have to unpack that.
it takes a lot of tithing to keep church leaders rollin in the dough, and to gold plate the domes and build those sparkly new church buildings. and none of that does a thing to feed hungry people.
As always, I would be delighted to have the UK’s conservatives here in the US.
Russell, we do have them here. They make up the most conservative quarter (wild-ass estimate) of the Democratic Party, most of the independents, and a few folks from the moderate/liberal end of the Republican Party.
As always, I would be delighted to have the UK’s conservatives here in the US.
Russell, we do have them here. They make up the most conservative quarter (wild-ass estimate) of the Democratic Party, most of the independents, and a few folks from the moderate/liberal end of the Republican Party.
As always, I would be delighted to have the UK’s conservatives here in the US.
Russell, we do have them here. They make up the most conservative quarter (wild-ass estimate) of the Democratic Party, most of the independents, and a few folks from the moderate/liberal end of the Republican Party.
“which suggests pretty strongly that religious giving (which is definitely not all about helping the homeless and hungry)”
I think you’re going to have to unpack that.
Allow me.
Church giving pays for professional and staff salaries, buildings, heat, electricity, music programs, conventions, publications.
It also pays for some amount of direct assistance to homeless and hungry people.
The amount of each depends on the specific religious organization.
Ergo, it’s not all about giving to the homeless and the hungry.
“Charitable” giving in the form of church tithing is tax-exempt, but it is not all charitable in the sense of giving to people who are, for some reason, disadvantaged and in need.
“which suggests pretty strongly that religious giving (which is definitely not all about helping the homeless and hungry)”
I think you’re going to have to unpack that.
Allow me.
Church giving pays for professional and staff salaries, buildings, heat, electricity, music programs, conventions, publications.
It also pays for some amount of direct assistance to homeless and hungry people.
The amount of each depends on the specific religious organization.
Ergo, it’s not all about giving to the homeless and the hungry.
“Charitable” giving in the form of church tithing is tax-exempt, but it is not all charitable in the sense of giving to people who are, for some reason, disadvantaged and in need.
“which suggests pretty strongly that religious giving (which is definitely not all about helping the homeless and hungry)”
I think you’re going to have to unpack that.
Allow me.
Church giving pays for professional and staff salaries, buildings, heat, electricity, music programs, conventions, publications.
It also pays for some amount of direct assistance to homeless and hungry people.
The amount of each depends on the specific religious organization.
Ergo, it’s not all about giving to the homeless and the hungry.
“Charitable” giving in the form of church tithing is tax-exempt, but it is not all charitable in the sense of giving to people who are, for some reason, disadvantaged and in need.
I think there being overhead involved in religious charitable giving is somewhat different from it being “not all about helping the homeless and hungry”, unless you’re going to claim that no charitable giving except direct donation to poor people is worthy. Certainly, it would be news to me that religious charitable giving is categorically worse in the overhead department than secular charities.
You are aware, aren’t you, that tithing doesn’t need to go through a church?
I think there being overhead involved in religious charitable giving is somewhat different from it being “not all about helping the homeless and hungry”, unless you’re going to claim that no charitable giving except direct donation to poor people is worthy. Certainly, it would be news to me that religious charitable giving is categorically worse in the overhead department than secular charities.
You are aware, aren’t you, that tithing doesn’t need to go through a church?
I think there being overhead involved in religious charitable giving is somewhat different from it being “not all about helping the homeless and hungry”, unless you’re going to claim that no charitable giving except direct donation to poor people is worthy. Certainly, it would be news to me that religious charitable giving is categorically worse in the overhead department than secular charities.
You are aware, aren’t you, that tithing doesn’t need to go through a church?
One man’s good idea is another man’s disaster. Interconnection works in all kinds of ways.
I’m sort of hung up on the whole anti-vax thing, which this immediately brought to mind.
One man’s good idea is another man’s disaster. Interconnection works in all kinds of ways.
I’m sort of hung up on the whole anti-vax thing, which this immediately brought to mind.
One man’s good idea is another man’s disaster. Interconnection works in all kinds of ways.
I’m sort of hung up on the whole anti-vax thing, which this immediately brought to mind.
The Thatcher quote reminds me vividly of a realization that I came to in my teens as the new political right came into fashion in a lot of western democracies. And that realization has held up reasonably well over the decades since.
Thatcher, and others like her, combine a healthy dose of authoritarianism with a world view that does see “society” largely as individuals on the one hand and government on the other. And in theory at least, they value the individual highly and despise the government. But of course that government that they despise must be run by people like themselves, for the greater good of all individuals naturally.
The upshot for Thatcher was that she focused very strongly on neutering or destroying those parts of the tapestry (or forest ecology to use Brett’s analogy) where the individual threads came together to form collective groups of individuals who, as a group, might challenge her perception of the world and her power to make it more so. Unions and independent universities were the first and obvious targets for Thatcher. Oddly enough the threads that grouped themselves into limited liability corporations (born of government of course but now seen as independent of it) were not a target.
At the same time I was struck by how much of a mirror image the openly authoritarian communist regimes like Poland provided to the Thatchers of the west. The communists too saw “society” as individuals on the one hand and government on the other but, in theory, valued government and not individuals. And needed to run government for the greater good of all of course. And to do so needed to neuter and destroy any part of the tapestry (the Solidarity Union, Catholic Church)that might challenge their ability to manage things for the greater good.
Nothing new or original in this of course but thanks for the trip down this particular memory lane.
The Thatcher quote reminds me vividly of a realization that I came to in my teens as the new political right came into fashion in a lot of western democracies. And that realization has held up reasonably well over the decades since.
Thatcher, and others like her, combine a healthy dose of authoritarianism with a world view that does see “society” largely as individuals on the one hand and government on the other. And in theory at least, they value the individual highly and despise the government. But of course that government that they despise must be run by people like themselves, for the greater good of all individuals naturally.
The upshot for Thatcher was that she focused very strongly on neutering or destroying those parts of the tapestry (or forest ecology to use Brett’s analogy) where the individual threads came together to form collective groups of individuals who, as a group, might challenge her perception of the world and her power to make it more so. Unions and independent universities were the first and obvious targets for Thatcher. Oddly enough the threads that grouped themselves into limited liability corporations (born of government of course but now seen as independent of it) were not a target.
At the same time I was struck by how much of a mirror image the openly authoritarian communist regimes like Poland provided to the Thatchers of the west. The communists too saw “society” as individuals on the one hand and government on the other but, in theory, valued government and not individuals. And needed to run government for the greater good of all of course. And to do so needed to neuter and destroy any part of the tapestry (the Solidarity Union, Catholic Church)that might challenge their ability to manage things for the greater good.
Nothing new or original in this of course but thanks for the trip down this particular memory lane.
The Thatcher quote reminds me vividly of a realization that I came to in my teens as the new political right came into fashion in a lot of western democracies. And that realization has held up reasonably well over the decades since.
Thatcher, and others like her, combine a healthy dose of authoritarianism with a world view that does see “society” largely as individuals on the one hand and government on the other. And in theory at least, they value the individual highly and despise the government. But of course that government that they despise must be run by people like themselves, for the greater good of all individuals naturally.
The upshot for Thatcher was that she focused very strongly on neutering or destroying those parts of the tapestry (or forest ecology to use Brett’s analogy) where the individual threads came together to form collective groups of individuals who, as a group, might challenge her perception of the world and her power to make it more so. Unions and independent universities were the first and obvious targets for Thatcher. Oddly enough the threads that grouped themselves into limited liability corporations (born of government of course but now seen as independent of it) were not a target.
At the same time I was struck by how much of a mirror image the openly authoritarian communist regimes like Poland provided to the Thatchers of the west. The communists too saw “society” as individuals on the one hand and government on the other but, in theory, valued government and not individuals. And needed to run government for the greater good of all of course. And to do so needed to neuter and destroy any part of the tapestry (the Solidarity Union, Catholic Church)that might challenge their ability to manage things for the greater good.
Nothing new or original in this of course but thanks for the trip down this particular memory lane.
You are aware, aren’t you, that tithing doesn’t need to go through a church?
I am aware of things you’ve never even dreamed of.
Yes, I’m aware of that.
A great deal of religious charitable giving goes to churches.
A great deal of money given to churches gets spent on things other than direct assistance to folks in need.
My wife is on the board of deacons of the church which she and I attend, and of which I am a member, and to which I regularly contribute. I’ve worked for churches. I have no problem with churches, or religion.
Not all of the money given under the aegis of religious “charitable giving” goes to people in need. A great deal of it goes, not to “overhead”, but to the cost of operating the church as an organization.
Minister’s salary, minister’s housing allowance, staff salaries, denominational fees that pay for *their* offices and staff and publications and conventions, music programs and fees to guest musicians, flowers, heat, electricity, printer toner, dry cleaning and laundry bills for robes etc., and so on and so on and so on.
All tax-exempt, but none of what I’ve named buys anybody a hamburger.
You are aware, aren’t you, that tithing doesn’t need to go through a church?
I am aware of things you’ve never even dreamed of.
Yes, I’m aware of that.
A great deal of religious charitable giving goes to churches.
A great deal of money given to churches gets spent on things other than direct assistance to folks in need.
My wife is on the board of deacons of the church which she and I attend, and of which I am a member, and to which I regularly contribute. I’ve worked for churches. I have no problem with churches, or religion.
Not all of the money given under the aegis of religious “charitable giving” goes to people in need. A great deal of it goes, not to “overhead”, but to the cost of operating the church as an organization.
Minister’s salary, minister’s housing allowance, staff salaries, denominational fees that pay for *their* offices and staff and publications and conventions, music programs and fees to guest musicians, flowers, heat, electricity, printer toner, dry cleaning and laundry bills for robes etc., and so on and so on and so on.
All tax-exempt, but none of what I’ve named buys anybody a hamburger.
You are aware, aren’t you, that tithing doesn’t need to go through a church?
I am aware of things you’ve never even dreamed of.
Yes, I’m aware of that.
A great deal of religious charitable giving goes to churches.
A great deal of money given to churches gets spent on things other than direct assistance to folks in need.
My wife is on the board of deacons of the church which she and I attend, and of which I am a member, and to which I regularly contribute. I’ve worked for churches. I have no problem with churches, or religion.
Not all of the money given under the aegis of religious “charitable giving” goes to people in need. A great deal of it goes, not to “overhead”, but to the cost of operating the church as an organization.
Minister’s salary, minister’s housing allowance, staff salaries, denominational fees that pay for *their* offices and staff and publications and conventions, music programs and fees to guest musicians, flowers, heat, electricity, printer toner, dry cleaning and laundry bills for robes etc., and so on and so on and so on.
All tax-exempt, but none of what I’ve named buys anybody a hamburger.
Certainly, it would be news to me that religious charitable giving is categorically worse in the overhead department than secular charities.
I might be news, but it also might be true. There are ways to find out which avenues for charitable giving have the lowest overhead. Some of those may be religious charities, but giving to those charities isn’t the same as giving to a church.
I don’t really see why givings to churches should result in a tax advantage. Charities should have to meet the same criteria, whether they are run by religious organizations or not.
I’m not at all religious, but I have given to what I thought were worthwhile charities run by religious organizations. The only times I’ve given anything directly to churches involved complying with social expectations like, say, getting married in church or having my kids baptized and having to provide the necessary pay-off.
(Come to think of it, I don’t recall deducting those church gifts, so I may well have acted in accordance with my proposed policy, if inadvertently.)
Certainly, it would be news to me that religious charitable giving is categorically worse in the overhead department than secular charities.
I might be news, but it also might be true. There are ways to find out which avenues for charitable giving have the lowest overhead. Some of those may be religious charities, but giving to those charities isn’t the same as giving to a church.
I don’t really see why givings to churches should result in a tax advantage. Charities should have to meet the same criteria, whether they are run by religious organizations or not.
I’m not at all religious, but I have given to what I thought were worthwhile charities run by religious organizations. The only times I’ve given anything directly to churches involved complying with social expectations like, say, getting married in church or having my kids baptized and having to provide the necessary pay-off.
(Come to think of it, I don’t recall deducting those church gifts, so I may well have acted in accordance with my proposed policy, if inadvertently.)
Certainly, it would be news to me that religious charitable giving is categorically worse in the overhead department than secular charities.
I might be news, but it also might be true. There are ways to find out which avenues for charitable giving have the lowest overhead. Some of those may be religious charities, but giving to those charities isn’t the same as giving to a church.
I don’t really see why givings to churches should result in a tax advantage. Charities should have to meet the same criteria, whether they are run by religious organizations or not.
I’m not at all religious, but I have given to what I thought were worthwhile charities run by religious organizations. The only times I’ve given anything directly to churches involved complying with social expectations like, say, getting married in church or having my kids baptized and having to provide the necessary pay-off.
(Come to think of it, I don’t recall deducting those church gifts, so I may well have acted in accordance with my proposed policy, if inadvertently.)
Can anyone offer up some actual, you know, data on the relative overhead of
a) religious organizations,
b) secular charities,
c) government aid programs?
Some, I know, devote over 90% of their income to their charitible works. Others manage to absorb upwards of 90% in “overhead” (including advertising to gain more donations) — but I don’t know what the overall picture actually is.
Can anyone offer up some actual, you know, data on the relative overhead of
a) religious organizations,
b) secular charities,
c) government aid programs?
Some, I know, devote over 90% of their income to their charitible works. Others manage to absorb upwards of 90% in “overhead” (including advertising to gain more donations) — but I don’t know what the overall picture actually is.
Can anyone offer up some actual, you know, data on the relative overhead of
a) religious organizations,
b) secular charities,
c) government aid programs?
Some, I know, devote over 90% of their income to their charitible works. Others manage to absorb upwards of 90% in “overhead” (including advertising to gain more donations) — but I don’t know what the overall picture actually is.
I think there being overhead involved in religious charitable giving is somewhat different from it being “not all about helping the homeless and hungry”,
first, my comment wasn’t intended to be pejorative.
giving to the church is giving to the church, not to a specific charity. and while churches typically do charity, they also do all kinds of things that having absolutely nothing at all to do with charity. they do stuff that is only for members, which makes the donations more, as russell said, “club dues”. they act as community centers. they build themselves bigger and shinier buildings. they keep their officials fat and happy. when you give to a church you pay for all the stuff it does, not just for the food drive.
for the obvious and extreme example: the opulence of Vatican City isn’t about helping the poor.
and yes, there is overhead in any organization, charitable or otherwise. and some do a better job of controlling overhead than others.
I think there being overhead involved in religious charitable giving is somewhat different from it being “not all about helping the homeless and hungry”,
first, my comment wasn’t intended to be pejorative.
giving to the church is giving to the church, not to a specific charity. and while churches typically do charity, they also do all kinds of things that having absolutely nothing at all to do with charity. they do stuff that is only for members, which makes the donations more, as russell said, “club dues”. they act as community centers. they build themselves bigger and shinier buildings. they keep their officials fat and happy. when you give to a church you pay for all the stuff it does, not just for the food drive.
for the obvious and extreme example: the opulence of Vatican City isn’t about helping the poor.
and yes, there is overhead in any organization, charitable or otherwise. and some do a better job of controlling overhead than others.
I think there being overhead involved in religious charitable giving is somewhat different from it being “not all about helping the homeless and hungry”,
first, my comment wasn’t intended to be pejorative.
giving to the church is giving to the church, not to a specific charity. and while churches typically do charity, they also do all kinds of things that having absolutely nothing at all to do with charity. they do stuff that is only for members, which makes the donations more, as russell said, “club dues”. they act as community centers. they build themselves bigger and shinier buildings. they keep their officials fat and happy. when you give to a church you pay for all the stuff it does, not just for the food drive.
for the obvious and extreme example: the opulence of Vatican City isn’t about helping the poor.
and yes, there is overhead in any organization, charitable or otherwise. and some do a better job of controlling overhead than others.
The question of overhead is an interesting one, but just to clarify my point:
Tax-exempt giving to churches for the purpose of funding the operations of the church is not “overhead”. The operation of the church, as an organization, *is the purpose* of the giving.
Many or most churches do charitable work, and so some funds given to them will find their way to what would correctly be called charitable purposes.
But people fund the operations of churches because they want the church to exist as a functional organization, for reasons that include but which extend well beyond whatever charitable work they do.
The reason I am making a point of this is because the whole “giving to charity” thing always comes up in discussions like this. And, there’s always some claim that some kind of people give a lot, while other kinds of people don’t.
If you’re going to go down that path, you have to factor in the purpose for which the “charitable gift” is given.
I have no problem with religion, churches, regular giving to churches. All good.
For that matter, if you don’t do any of that, I have no problem with that, either.
But giving money to churches does not equate to addressing the tangible needs of people with whom you share a common society.
There is, perhaps, some overlap, but the two are not the same.
The question of overhead is an interesting one, but just to clarify my point:
Tax-exempt giving to churches for the purpose of funding the operations of the church is not “overhead”. The operation of the church, as an organization, *is the purpose* of the giving.
Many or most churches do charitable work, and so some funds given to them will find their way to what would correctly be called charitable purposes.
But people fund the operations of churches because they want the church to exist as a functional organization, for reasons that include but which extend well beyond whatever charitable work they do.
The reason I am making a point of this is because the whole “giving to charity” thing always comes up in discussions like this. And, there’s always some claim that some kind of people give a lot, while other kinds of people don’t.
If you’re going to go down that path, you have to factor in the purpose for which the “charitable gift” is given.
I have no problem with religion, churches, regular giving to churches. All good.
For that matter, if you don’t do any of that, I have no problem with that, either.
But giving money to churches does not equate to addressing the tangible needs of people with whom you share a common society.
There is, perhaps, some overlap, but the two are not the same.
The question of overhead is an interesting one, but just to clarify my point:
Tax-exempt giving to churches for the purpose of funding the operations of the church is not “overhead”. The operation of the church, as an organization, *is the purpose* of the giving.
Many or most churches do charitable work, and so some funds given to them will find their way to what would correctly be called charitable purposes.
But people fund the operations of churches because they want the church to exist as a functional organization, for reasons that include but which extend well beyond whatever charitable work they do.
The reason I am making a point of this is because the whole “giving to charity” thing always comes up in discussions like this. And, there’s always some claim that some kind of people give a lot, while other kinds of people don’t.
If you’re going to go down that path, you have to factor in the purpose for which the “charitable gift” is given.
I have no problem with religion, churches, regular giving to churches. All good.
For that matter, if you don’t do any of that, I have no problem with that, either.
But giving money to churches does not equate to addressing the tangible needs of people with whom you share a common society.
There is, perhaps, some overlap, but the two are not the same.
Ditto for Red Cross and practically any other charitable organization you can point to, with a few exceptions.
Come to think of it, it’d be interesting to see how much of our tax dollars go to administration of social programs vs. direct aid. That’s probably in the realm of what one could find out if one were both interested and inclined to spend the time ferreting it out.
Ditto for Red Cross and practically any other charitable organization you can point to, with a few exceptions.
Come to think of it, it’d be interesting to see how much of our tax dollars go to administration of social programs vs. direct aid. That’s probably in the realm of what one could find out if one were both interested and inclined to spend the time ferreting it out.
Ditto for Red Cross and practically any other charitable organization you can point to, with a few exceptions.
Come to think of it, it’d be interesting to see how much of our tax dollars go to administration of social programs vs. direct aid. That’s probably in the realm of what one could find out if one were both interested and inclined to spend the time ferreting it out.
Thanks for the heads up cleek. It is apparently related to sitemeter, which was on this blog. I’ve deleted some of the sidebar modules, and I hope that I got it, but will keep an eye out. If you get any more redirects, please note it in the comments.
Thanks for the heads up cleek. It is apparently related to sitemeter, which was on this blog. I’ve deleted some of the sidebar modules, and I hope that I got it, but will keep an eye out. If you get any more redirects, please note it in the comments.
Thanks for the heads up cleek. It is apparently related to sitemeter, which was on this blog. I’ve deleted some of the sidebar modules, and I hope that I got it, but will keep an eye out. If you get any more redirects, please note it in the comments.
Heh.
I was just logged in, looking for the culprit, too.
There’s maybe some crossing-of-the-streams aspect to that.
Heh.
I was just logged in, looking for the culprit, too.
There’s maybe some crossing-of-the-streams aspect to that.
Heh.
I was just logged in, looking for the culprit, too.
There’s maybe some crossing-of-the-streams aspect to that.
Ditto for Red Cross and practically any other charitable organization you can point to, with a few exceptions.
I don’t want to make too much of this, so last time around on this point, for me (I hope).
The cost of operation for the Red Cross can properly be considered overhead, because the Red Cross exists to do what could properly be considered charitable work – disaster relief, emergency assistance, collecting blood for medical purposes.
The cost of operation of a church isn’t really overhead in the same sense. Churches do charitable work, and it’s an important part of what they do, but they exist for other reasons.
They are more like a fraternal organization in that sense, and less like a charity per se.
Ditto for Red Cross and practically any other charitable organization you can point to, with a few exceptions.
I don’t want to make too much of this, so last time around on this point, for me (I hope).
The cost of operation for the Red Cross can properly be considered overhead, because the Red Cross exists to do what could properly be considered charitable work – disaster relief, emergency assistance, collecting blood for medical purposes.
The cost of operation of a church isn’t really overhead in the same sense. Churches do charitable work, and it’s an important part of what they do, but they exist for other reasons.
They are more like a fraternal organization in that sense, and less like a charity per se.
Ditto for Red Cross and practically any other charitable organization you can point to, with a few exceptions.
I don’t want to make too much of this, so last time around on this point, for me (I hope).
The cost of operation for the Red Cross can properly be considered overhead, because the Red Cross exists to do what could properly be considered charitable work – disaster relief, emergency assistance, collecting blood for medical purposes.
The cost of operation of a church isn’t really overhead in the same sense. Churches do charitable work, and it’s an important part of what they do, but they exist for other reasons.
They are more like a fraternal organization in that sense, and less like a charity per se.
I don’t disagree, russell. I had composed that before reading your 1:26pm comment.
My own personal way of looking at this is I give to my own church primarily to keep it alive. To keep it alive is a good thing, from the point of view of the people who attend, but I don’t know how much of that money gets turned into direct aid. Not much, probably.
I don’t disagree, russell. I had composed that before reading your 1:26pm comment.
My own personal way of looking at this is I give to my own church primarily to keep it alive. To keep it alive is a good thing, from the point of view of the people who attend, but I don’t know how much of that money gets turned into direct aid. Not much, probably.
I don’t disagree, russell. I had composed that before reading your 1:26pm comment.
My own personal way of looking at this is I give to my own church primarily to keep it alive. To keep it alive is a good thing, from the point of view of the people who attend, but I don’t know how much of that money gets turned into direct aid. Not much, probably.
Anyway, I’d love to see conservatives talking again about “compassionate conservatism” and pushing private organizations (religious or not) as the solution to poverty. One could have a real debate about the effectiveness of this or that program (and whether government aid or tax exemptions to religous groups is a good idea or constitutional or whatever) and about whether government programs are better or worse. I think we need government programs, but would be happy to see private organizations outperforming the government in this area. But at least there would be a consensus on our duty to help the poor, rather than feeling contempt for the 47 percent, which to my mind is more what one hears from the Republican Party today.
Anyway, I’d love to see conservatives talking again about “compassionate conservatism” and pushing private organizations (religious or not) as the solution to poverty. One could have a real debate about the effectiveness of this or that program (and whether government aid or tax exemptions to religous groups is a good idea or constitutional or whatever) and about whether government programs are better or worse. I think we need government programs, but would be happy to see private organizations outperforming the government in this area. But at least there would be a consensus on our duty to help the poor, rather than feeling contempt for the 47 percent, which to my mind is more what one hears from the Republican Party today.
Anyway, I’d love to see conservatives talking again about “compassionate conservatism” and pushing private organizations (religious or not) as the solution to poverty. One could have a real debate about the effectiveness of this or that program (and whether government aid or tax exemptions to religous groups is a good idea or constitutional or whatever) and about whether government programs are better or worse. I think we need government programs, but would be happy to see private organizations outperforming the government in this area. But at least there would be a consensus on our duty to help the poor, rather than feeling contempt for the 47 percent, which to my mind is more what one hears from the Republican Party today.
My church spends the bulk of our offering on keeping itself in business, but there is a big event once a year where we raise about 20,000 for various charities. That money comes from the community as a whole, but that’s probably where the bulk of our help to others comes from.
My church spends the bulk of our offering on keeping itself in business, but there is a big event once a year where we raise about 20,000 for various charities. That money comes from the community as a whole, but that’s probably where the bulk of our help to others comes from.
My church spends the bulk of our offering on keeping itself in business, but there is a big event once a year where we raise about 20,000 for various charities. That money comes from the community as a whole, but that’s probably where the bulk of our help to others comes from.
You’ll never guess where I found a source of information on how different charities vary in how much of their received donations go to direct aid.
You’ll never guess where I found a source of information on how different charities vary in how much of their received donations go to direct aid.
You’ll never guess where I found a source of information on how different charities vary in how much of their received donations go to direct aid.
I’d love to see conservatives talking again about “compassionate conservatism” and pushing private organizations (religious or not) as the solution to poverty.
So, my thought about the solution to poverty is this:
People want and need useful work to do, that pays well enough that they can meet their needs and take care of themselves and their families. The reason there is so much poverty in the US, it seems to me, is that there isn’t enough of the “useful” and “pays well enough” stuff to go around.
Either that, or about half the country is just too damned lazy.
I find the “too damned lazy” explanation to be lacking.
Social safety nets are great, but if we keep thinking about social safety nets as the solution to 47% of population needing public assistance in order to afford enough to eat, we are never going to get out of the mode of playing catch up.
We need to get *ahead* of the problem, not just keep sticking band-aids on it.
Why isn’t there enough of that useful, renumerative work around?
Was it ever there? Where did it go?
How do we create more of it?
Stuff like this – both the positive and negative side of it, both a robust economy and a crappy one – doesn’t happen by accident. It’s not some weird blessing or curse delivered by the hands of fate.
We make decisions, both individually and collectively, and results flow from them.
Are we obliged to make decisions collectively about this stuff? Or should we all just do what we think is a good idea and let the chips fall?
If we’re just going to let the chips fall, what do we owe the folks who end up holding the short end of the stick?
How many of short-end-holders do there have to be before “letting the chips fall” starts to look like a bad idea?
If we’re making decisions collectively, whose interests do we have to take into account?
Food stamps are better than starving, but having enough in the first place is even better than that.
I’d love to see conservatives talking again about “compassionate conservatism” and pushing private organizations (religious or not) as the solution to poverty.
So, my thought about the solution to poverty is this:
People want and need useful work to do, that pays well enough that they can meet their needs and take care of themselves and their families. The reason there is so much poverty in the US, it seems to me, is that there isn’t enough of the “useful” and “pays well enough” stuff to go around.
Either that, or about half the country is just too damned lazy.
I find the “too damned lazy” explanation to be lacking.
Social safety nets are great, but if we keep thinking about social safety nets as the solution to 47% of population needing public assistance in order to afford enough to eat, we are never going to get out of the mode of playing catch up.
We need to get *ahead* of the problem, not just keep sticking band-aids on it.
Why isn’t there enough of that useful, renumerative work around?
Was it ever there? Where did it go?
How do we create more of it?
Stuff like this – both the positive and negative side of it, both a robust economy and a crappy one – doesn’t happen by accident. It’s not some weird blessing or curse delivered by the hands of fate.
We make decisions, both individually and collectively, and results flow from them.
Are we obliged to make decisions collectively about this stuff? Or should we all just do what we think is a good idea and let the chips fall?
If we’re just going to let the chips fall, what do we owe the folks who end up holding the short end of the stick?
How many of short-end-holders do there have to be before “letting the chips fall” starts to look like a bad idea?
If we’re making decisions collectively, whose interests do we have to take into account?
Food stamps are better than starving, but having enough in the first place is even better than that.
I’d love to see conservatives talking again about “compassionate conservatism” and pushing private organizations (religious or not) as the solution to poverty.
So, my thought about the solution to poverty is this:
People want and need useful work to do, that pays well enough that they can meet their needs and take care of themselves and their families. The reason there is so much poverty in the US, it seems to me, is that there isn’t enough of the “useful” and “pays well enough” stuff to go around.
Either that, or about half the country is just too damned lazy.
I find the “too damned lazy” explanation to be lacking.
Social safety nets are great, but if we keep thinking about social safety nets as the solution to 47% of population needing public assistance in order to afford enough to eat, we are never going to get out of the mode of playing catch up.
We need to get *ahead* of the problem, not just keep sticking band-aids on it.
Why isn’t there enough of that useful, renumerative work around?
Was it ever there? Where did it go?
How do we create more of it?
Stuff like this – both the positive and negative side of it, both a robust economy and a crappy one – doesn’t happen by accident. It’s not some weird blessing or curse delivered by the hands of fate.
We make decisions, both individually and collectively, and results flow from them.
Are we obliged to make decisions collectively about this stuff? Or should we all just do what we think is a good idea and let the chips fall?
If we’re just going to let the chips fall, what do we owe the folks who end up holding the short end of the stick?
How many of short-end-holders do there have to be before “letting the chips fall” starts to look like a bad idea?
If we’re making decisions collectively, whose interests do we have to take into account?
Food stamps are better than starving, but having enough in the first place is even better than that.
This:
Tax-exempt giving to churches for the purpose of funding the operations of the church is not “overhead”. The operation of the church, as an organization, *is the purpose* of the giving.
and this:
The cost of operation for the Red Cross can properly be considered overhead, because the Red Cross exists to do what could properly be considered charitable work – disaster relief, emergency assistance, collecting blood for medical purposes.
The cost of operation of a church isn’t really overhead in the same sense. Churches do charitable work, and it’s an important part of what they do, but they exist for other reasons.
are quite right.
I’d say were using “overhead” in a very loose fashion, in the sense of something like “what percentage of a donation doesn’t go to helping the poor?” regardless of whether or not helping the poor was the goal of the donation.
The question is does raise, though, (or maybe fails to address) is whether or not giving money to a church so they can run the church should result in a dollar-for-dollar tax exemption.
That’s not to say people shouldn’t give money to their churches, of course.
This:
Tax-exempt giving to churches for the purpose of funding the operations of the church is not “overhead”. The operation of the church, as an organization, *is the purpose* of the giving.
and this:
The cost of operation for the Red Cross can properly be considered overhead, because the Red Cross exists to do what could properly be considered charitable work – disaster relief, emergency assistance, collecting blood for medical purposes.
The cost of operation of a church isn’t really overhead in the same sense. Churches do charitable work, and it’s an important part of what they do, but they exist for other reasons.
are quite right.
I’d say were using “overhead” in a very loose fashion, in the sense of something like “what percentage of a donation doesn’t go to helping the poor?” regardless of whether or not helping the poor was the goal of the donation.
The question is does raise, though, (or maybe fails to address) is whether or not giving money to a church so they can run the church should result in a dollar-for-dollar tax exemption.
That’s not to say people shouldn’t give money to their churches, of course.
This:
Tax-exempt giving to churches for the purpose of funding the operations of the church is not “overhead”. The operation of the church, as an organization, *is the purpose* of the giving.
and this:
The cost of operation for the Red Cross can properly be considered overhead, because the Red Cross exists to do what could properly be considered charitable work – disaster relief, emergency assistance, collecting blood for medical purposes.
The cost of operation of a church isn’t really overhead in the same sense. Churches do charitable work, and it’s an important part of what they do, but they exist for other reasons.
are quite right.
I’d say were using “overhead” in a very loose fashion, in the sense of something like “what percentage of a donation doesn’t go to helping the poor?” regardless of whether or not helping the poor was the goal of the donation.
The question is does raise, though, (or maybe fails to address) is whether or not giving money to a church so they can run the church should result in a dollar-for-dollar tax exemption.
That’s not to say people shouldn’t give money to their churches, of course.
I find myself in complete agreement with russell’s 2:57.
In regards to social safety nets, I think it’s important to distinguish between short term and long term unemployment. I think short term social safety nets are relatively cheap and functional. Unemployment insurance that smooths over things financially until you bounce back is great. It protects people from having to save a lot and/or liquidate assets like cars or houses to stay afloat.
Longterm unemployment is far worse, and it’s also hard to get out of: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/12/10-reasons-long-term-unemployment-national-catastrophe
And I don’t think that is something that can be really fixed by unemployment benefits alone. Beyond the loss of a paycheck, longterm unemployment is profoundly bad for people.
Why isn’t there enough of that useful, renumerative work around?
Increased productivity per worker I think is one driver. I mean, US manufacturing output is strong and getting stronger:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/OUTMS
While jobs are slightly more anemic:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES3000000001
(adjust start to 1987 match the Fed data)
And what’s not being done by robots is shipped oversees.
The overseas portion will change over time, as china gets over its glut of labor and people demand a higher standard of living.
How many of short-end-holders do there have to be before “letting the chips fall” starts to look like a bad idea?
Hopefully before they are sharpened into spears.
I find myself in complete agreement with russell’s 2:57.
In regards to social safety nets, I think it’s important to distinguish between short term and long term unemployment. I think short term social safety nets are relatively cheap and functional. Unemployment insurance that smooths over things financially until you bounce back is great. It protects people from having to save a lot and/or liquidate assets like cars or houses to stay afloat.
Longterm unemployment is far worse, and it’s also hard to get out of: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/12/10-reasons-long-term-unemployment-national-catastrophe
And I don’t think that is something that can be really fixed by unemployment benefits alone. Beyond the loss of a paycheck, longterm unemployment is profoundly bad for people.
Why isn’t there enough of that useful, renumerative work around?
Increased productivity per worker I think is one driver. I mean, US manufacturing output is strong and getting stronger:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/OUTMS
While jobs are slightly more anemic:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES3000000001
(adjust start to 1987 match the Fed data)
And what’s not being done by robots is shipped oversees.
The overseas portion will change over time, as china gets over its glut of labor and people demand a higher standard of living.
How many of short-end-holders do there have to be before “letting the chips fall” starts to look like a bad idea?
Hopefully before they are sharpened into spears.
I find myself in complete agreement with russell’s 2:57.
In regards to social safety nets, I think it’s important to distinguish between short term and long term unemployment. I think short term social safety nets are relatively cheap and functional. Unemployment insurance that smooths over things financially until you bounce back is great. It protects people from having to save a lot and/or liquidate assets like cars or houses to stay afloat.
Longterm unemployment is far worse, and it’s also hard to get out of: http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/12/10-reasons-long-term-unemployment-national-catastrophe
And I don’t think that is something that can be really fixed by unemployment benefits alone. Beyond the loss of a paycheck, longterm unemployment is profoundly bad for people.
Why isn’t there enough of that useful, renumerative work around?
Increased productivity per worker I think is one driver. I mean, US manufacturing output is strong and getting stronger:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/OUTMS
While jobs are slightly more anemic:
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/CES3000000001
(adjust start to 1987 match the Fed data)
And what’s not being done by robots is shipped oversees.
The overseas portion will change over time, as china gets over its glut of labor and people demand a higher standard of living.
How many of short-end-holders do there have to be before “letting the chips fall” starts to look like a bad idea?
Hopefully before they are sharpened into spears.
The question is does raise, though, (or maybe fails to address) is whether or not giving money to a church so they can run the church should result in a dollar-for-dollar tax exemption.
We could completely remove the exemption system and not have to worry about whether various peoples charitable inclinations are in line with societal goals.
Also less paperwork around this time.
The question is does raise, though, (or maybe fails to address) is whether or not giving money to a church so they can run the church should result in a dollar-for-dollar tax exemption.
We could completely remove the exemption system and not have to worry about whether various peoples charitable inclinations are in line with societal goals.
Also less paperwork around this time.
The question is does raise, though, (or maybe fails to address) is whether or not giving money to a church so they can run the church should result in a dollar-for-dollar tax exemption.
We could completely remove the exemption system and not have to worry about whether various peoples charitable inclinations are in line with societal goals.
Also less paperwork around this time.
That’s not to say people shouldn’t give money to their churches, of course.
Absolutely.
In fact, by exempting this as “taxable income” to religious organizations and allowing “deductions” from the taxable income of givers, we are making a social (there’s that f*cking word again) decision that “takes” from some and “gives” to others.
Forcibly. All backed up by that predatory protection racket, aka The Government.
Incredible.
This is a concept that appears to be beyond the, as currently construed in the USofA, conservative mindset.
Because Liberty.
That’s not to say people shouldn’t give money to their churches, of course.
Absolutely.
In fact, by exempting this as “taxable income” to religious organizations and allowing “deductions” from the taxable income of givers, we are making a social (there’s that f*cking word again) decision that “takes” from some and “gives” to others.
Forcibly. All backed up by that predatory protection racket, aka The Government.
Incredible.
This is a concept that appears to be beyond the, as currently construed in the USofA, conservative mindset.
Because Liberty.
That’s not to say people shouldn’t give money to their churches, of course.
Absolutely.
In fact, by exempting this as “taxable income” to religious organizations and allowing “deductions” from the taxable income of givers, we are making a social (there’s that f*cking word again) decision that “takes” from some and “gives” to others.
Forcibly. All backed up by that predatory protection racket, aka The Government.
Incredible.
This is a concept that appears to be beyond the, as currently construed in the USofA, conservative mindset.
Because Liberty.
Why isn’t there enough of that useful, renumerative work around?
Was it ever there? Where did it go?
This first is actually a two part question. I think most of us can think of useful stuff that needs doing but isn’t getting done. Increased productivity notwithstanding. (Hence, among other things, the suggestion to revive the Civilian Construction Corps.) So that isn’t the issue.
As for the second question, it is pretty clear that, the Great Depression excepted, mostly there has been sufficient work to keep people alive. (Otherwise, we would have had a history of starvation, right?)
So the question becomes, why doesn’t that work that needs doing pay enough? When, manifestly, it once did. Perhaps we could look at the relative returns to labor vs capital.
Then we could look at what has changed. Possibly starting with the way we changed the tax structure to benefit capital gains (returns to capital) relative to earned income (returns to labor). We know what the arguments were for doing that — increased investment leading to more economic growth and more money for everybody. And, in practice, did that work? Hmmm….
Why isn’t there enough of that useful, renumerative work around?
Was it ever there? Where did it go?
This first is actually a two part question. I think most of us can think of useful stuff that needs doing but isn’t getting done. Increased productivity notwithstanding. (Hence, among other things, the suggestion to revive the Civilian Construction Corps.) So that isn’t the issue.
As for the second question, it is pretty clear that, the Great Depression excepted, mostly there has been sufficient work to keep people alive. (Otherwise, we would have had a history of starvation, right?)
So the question becomes, why doesn’t that work that needs doing pay enough? When, manifestly, it once did. Perhaps we could look at the relative returns to labor vs capital.
Then we could look at what has changed. Possibly starting with the way we changed the tax structure to benefit capital gains (returns to capital) relative to earned income (returns to labor). We know what the arguments were for doing that — increased investment leading to more economic growth and more money for everybody. And, in practice, did that work? Hmmm….
Why isn’t there enough of that useful, renumerative work around?
Was it ever there? Where did it go?
This first is actually a two part question. I think most of us can think of useful stuff that needs doing but isn’t getting done. Increased productivity notwithstanding. (Hence, among other things, the suggestion to revive the Civilian Construction Corps.) So that isn’t the issue.
As for the second question, it is pretty clear that, the Great Depression excepted, mostly there has been sufficient work to keep people alive. (Otherwise, we would have had a history of starvation, right?)
So the question becomes, why doesn’t that work that needs doing pay enough? When, manifestly, it once did. Perhaps we could look at the relative returns to labor vs capital.
Then we could look at what has changed. Possibly starting with the way we changed the tax structure to benefit capital gains (returns to capital) relative to earned income (returns to labor). We know what the arguments were for doing that — increased investment leading to more economic growth and more money for everybody. And, in practice, did that work? Hmmm….
I was SHOCKED when I saw that!
I was SHOCKED when I saw that!
I was SHOCKED when I saw that!
russel: Why isn’t there enough of that useful, renumerative work around?
thompson: “Increased productivity per worker I think is one driver. I mean, US manufacturing output is strong and getting stronger..”
Since 2008, the USA has been in a classic depression. Demand dropped, as everyone tried to pay down their debts (or build up reserves, because of defaults on debts). Companies have been sitting on large (and getting larger) piles of cash, but not expanding, because the demand just isn’t there.
Meanwhile, the usual source of added demand (government deficit spending, aka ‘fiscal stimulus’) has been choked off for political reasons. So it has taken a long, long time to get back to ‘normal’, and what would normally be a short-term safety net has turned into a long-term problem.
It takes a huge stimulus to turn around a depressed economy; for the Great Depression, in spite of a decade of effort, it took WWII to do the job.
Those who forget the past, etc., etc.
russel: Why isn’t there enough of that useful, renumerative work around?
thompson: “Increased productivity per worker I think is one driver. I mean, US manufacturing output is strong and getting stronger..”
Since 2008, the USA has been in a classic depression. Demand dropped, as everyone tried to pay down their debts (or build up reserves, because of defaults on debts). Companies have been sitting on large (and getting larger) piles of cash, but not expanding, because the demand just isn’t there.
Meanwhile, the usual source of added demand (government deficit spending, aka ‘fiscal stimulus’) has been choked off for political reasons. So it has taken a long, long time to get back to ‘normal’, and what would normally be a short-term safety net has turned into a long-term problem.
It takes a huge stimulus to turn around a depressed economy; for the Great Depression, in spite of a decade of effort, it took WWII to do the job.
Those who forget the past, etc., etc.
russel: Why isn’t there enough of that useful, renumerative work around?
thompson: “Increased productivity per worker I think is one driver. I mean, US manufacturing output is strong and getting stronger..”
Since 2008, the USA has been in a classic depression. Demand dropped, as everyone tried to pay down their debts (or build up reserves, because of defaults on debts). Companies have been sitting on large (and getting larger) piles of cash, but not expanding, because the demand just isn’t there.
Meanwhile, the usual source of added demand (government deficit spending, aka ‘fiscal stimulus’) has been choked off for political reasons. So it has taken a long, long time to get back to ‘normal’, and what would normally be a short-term safety net has turned into a long-term problem.
It takes a huge stimulus to turn around a depressed economy; for the Great Depression, in spite of a decade of effort, it took WWII to do the job.
Those who forget the past, etc., etc.
“The upshot for Thatcher was that she focused very strongly on neutering or destroying those parts of the tapestry (or forest ecology to use Brett’s analogy) where the individual threads came together to form collective groups of individuals who, as a group, might challenge her perception of the world and her power to make it more so. Unions and independent universities were the first and obvious targets for Thatcher. Oddly enough the threads that grouped themselves into limited liability corporations (born of government of course but now seen as independent of it) were not a target.”
Just like the Right in the USA – they focus on those groups which are politically opposed, and make a big deal about how they are illegitimate, and to be destroyed.
The ones which are politically favorable are preserved.
‘Keep government hands off of my Medicare’
“The upshot for Thatcher was that she focused very strongly on neutering or destroying those parts of the tapestry (or forest ecology to use Brett’s analogy) where the individual threads came together to form collective groups of individuals who, as a group, might challenge her perception of the world and her power to make it more so. Unions and independent universities were the first and obvious targets for Thatcher. Oddly enough the threads that grouped themselves into limited liability corporations (born of government of course but now seen as independent of it) were not a target.”
Just like the Right in the USA – they focus on those groups which are politically opposed, and make a big deal about how they are illegitimate, and to be destroyed.
The ones which are politically favorable are preserved.
‘Keep government hands off of my Medicare’
“The upshot for Thatcher was that she focused very strongly on neutering or destroying those parts of the tapestry (or forest ecology to use Brett’s analogy) where the individual threads came together to form collective groups of individuals who, as a group, might challenge her perception of the world and her power to make it more so. Unions and independent universities were the first and obvious targets for Thatcher. Oddly enough the threads that grouped themselves into limited liability corporations (born of government of course but now seen as independent of it) were not a target.”
Just like the Right in the USA – they focus on those groups which are politically opposed, and make a big deal about how they are illegitimate, and to be destroyed.
The ones which are politically favorable are preserved.
‘Keep government hands off of my Medicare’
The top 20% of earners in America pay over half of the taxes
And what percentage of total earnings do they earn ?
The top 20% of earners in America pay over half of the taxes
And what percentage of total earnings do they earn ?
The top 20% of earners in America pay over half of the taxes
And what percentage of total earnings do they earn ?
You mean, “What percentage of total income do they receive?”
You mean, “What percentage of total income do they receive?”
You mean, “What percentage of total income do they receive?”
Nigel, FYI, the fact that the top 20% of earners pay over half of the taxes is a result of what Ronald Reagan considered one of the greatest accomplishments of his tenure as President: The tax structure was reformed, and the tax rate on lowest income earners’ was reduced to zero.
So, obviously, everybody else’s portion of the taxes actually collected rose. If you collect no taxes on the lowest 50% of earners, and you collect a flat tax on the rest, the top earners are going to end up paying a substantial majority of the taxes collected. But apparently this simple kind of arithmetic is beyond those who get hysterical about how much the top earners pay.
Nigel, FYI, the fact that the top 20% of earners pay over half of the taxes is a result of what Ronald Reagan considered one of the greatest accomplishments of his tenure as President: The tax structure was reformed, and the tax rate on lowest income earners’ was reduced to zero.
So, obviously, everybody else’s portion of the taxes actually collected rose. If you collect no taxes on the lowest 50% of earners, and you collect a flat tax on the rest, the top earners are going to end up paying a substantial majority of the taxes collected. But apparently this simple kind of arithmetic is beyond those who get hysterical about how much the top earners pay.
Nigel, FYI, the fact that the top 20% of earners pay over half of the taxes is a result of what Ronald Reagan considered one of the greatest accomplishments of his tenure as President: The tax structure was reformed, and the tax rate on lowest income earners’ was reduced to zero.
So, obviously, everybody else’s portion of the taxes actually collected rose. If you collect no taxes on the lowest 50% of earners, and you collect a flat tax on the rest, the top earners are going to end up paying a substantial majority of the taxes collected. But apparently this simple kind of arithmetic is beyond those who get hysterical about how much the top earners pay.
The top 20% of earners in America pay over half of the taxes. So, even were I to assume that the upper half of the income distribution were all Democrats, it’s true that over half of all Democrats would be paying less than half of the taxes.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. Or even what the total set of assumptions is.
Are you suggesting that Democrats are (in your extreme case) the upper half of the income distribution and Republicans the lower half? But then Republicans aren’t paying much at all, likely not enough to fund even the things Republicans want, like useless ships and planes and whatnot.
The top 20% of earners in America pay over half of the taxes. So, even were I to assume that the upper half of the income distribution were all Democrats, it’s true that over half of all Democrats would be paying less than half of the taxes.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. Or even what the total set of assumptions is.
Are you suggesting that Democrats are (in your extreme case) the upper half of the income distribution and Republicans the lower half? But then Republicans aren’t paying much at all, likely not enough to fund even the things Republicans want, like useless ships and planes and whatnot.
The top 20% of earners in America pay over half of the taxes. So, even were I to assume that the upper half of the income distribution were all Democrats, it’s true that over half of all Democrats would be paying less than half of the taxes.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. Or even what the total set of assumptions is.
Are you suggesting that Democrats are (in your extreme case) the upper half of the income distribution and Republicans the lower half? But then Republicans aren’t paying much at all, likely not enough to fund even the things Republicans want, like useless ships and planes and whatnot.
I don’t think it’s very useful to equate charitable contributions as defined by the IRS statistics with some general notion of “helping the needy.”
There’s the much-discussed issue of religious contributions, of course. And add to that lots of gifts to universities, private schools, cultural institutions, and so on. The University of Alabama athletic program was the beneficiary of about $34 million in contributions in 2013, for example.
Then there are all sorts of groups that operate under 501(c)3 to promote various agendas.
So any talk about who gives how much to help people who actually need help is meaningless without much better data.
I don’t think it’s very useful to equate charitable contributions as defined by the IRS statistics with some general notion of “helping the needy.”
There’s the much-discussed issue of religious contributions, of course. And add to that lots of gifts to universities, private schools, cultural institutions, and so on. The University of Alabama athletic program was the beneficiary of about $34 million in contributions in 2013, for example.
Then there are all sorts of groups that operate under 501(c)3 to promote various agendas.
So any talk about who gives how much to help people who actually need help is meaningless without much better data.
I don’t think it’s very useful to equate charitable contributions as defined by the IRS statistics with some general notion of “helping the needy.”
There’s the much-discussed issue of religious contributions, of course. And add to that lots of gifts to universities, private schools, cultural institutions, and so on. The University of Alabama athletic program was the beneficiary of about $34 million in contributions in 2013, for example.
Then there are all sorts of groups that operate under 501(c)3 to promote various agendas.
So any talk about who gives how much to help people who actually need help is meaningless without much better data.
“so it has taken a long, long time to get back to ‘normal’,”
Slightly dated but relevant graph
It used to be that a recession was followed by something called a “recovery”, where the economy improved faster than normal for a bit, until it reached approximately where continued normal growth would have gotten the economy.
After the 80’s, things began changing, and the modern ‘recovery’ isn’t a bounce back to the prior trajectory. Rather, the recession hits bottom, and then normal economic growth resumes from the bottom, and the loss of the recession is never made up.
We’re not looking at old style recessions and recoveries. We’re looking at stepwise drops in the economy which we never recover from.
“Are you suggesting that Democrats are (in your extreme case) the upper half of the income distribution and Republicans the lower half?”
Nothing like that. I’m saying that, even in that hypothetical situation, most Democrats would not be paying their share of the cost of government programs.
It’s easy to advocate requiring somebody else to help the poor. People who contribute to charity aren’t having somebody else shoulder the burden, they’re picking it up themselves.
“so it has taken a long, long time to get back to ‘normal’,”
Slightly dated but relevant graph
It used to be that a recession was followed by something called a “recovery”, where the economy improved faster than normal for a bit, until it reached approximately where continued normal growth would have gotten the economy.
After the 80’s, things began changing, and the modern ‘recovery’ isn’t a bounce back to the prior trajectory. Rather, the recession hits bottom, and then normal economic growth resumes from the bottom, and the loss of the recession is never made up.
We’re not looking at old style recessions and recoveries. We’re looking at stepwise drops in the economy which we never recover from.
“Are you suggesting that Democrats are (in your extreme case) the upper half of the income distribution and Republicans the lower half?”
Nothing like that. I’m saying that, even in that hypothetical situation, most Democrats would not be paying their share of the cost of government programs.
It’s easy to advocate requiring somebody else to help the poor. People who contribute to charity aren’t having somebody else shoulder the burden, they’re picking it up themselves.
“so it has taken a long, long time to get back to ‘normal’,”
Slightly dated but relevant graph
It used to be that a recession was followed by something called a “recovery”, where the economy improved faster than normal for a bit, until it reached approximately where continued normal growth would have gotten the economy.
After the 80’s, things began changing, and the modern ‘recovery’ isn’t a bounce back to the prior trajectory. Rather, the recession hits bottom, and then normal economic growth resumes from the bottom, and the loss of the recession is never made up.
We’re not looking at old style recessions and recoveries. We’re looking at stepwise drops in the economy which we never recover from.
“Are you suggesting that Democrats are (in your extreme case) the upper half of the income distribution and Republicans the lower half?”
Nothing like that. I’m saying that, even in that hypothetical situation, most Democrats would not be paying their share of the cost of government programs.
It’s easy to advocate requiring somebody else to help the poor. People who contribute to charity aren’t having somebody else shoulder the burden, they’re picking it up themselves.
To follow up on what Yukoner wrote, that interview was given in 87, right after she won her third term. Her first term was a flop, with the Brixton riots occurring at the end, and she was only reelected to a second term in 1983 because she was able to use the Falkland conflict. Going into that 2nd term, she dismantled trade labor unions, most notably the miners in 84-85. At the same time as this speech, planning was taking place for the Community Charge, that was an attempt to undermine local councils that were primarily Labor.
A year later, she gave her ‘Sermon on the Mound‘, which attempted to provide a theological justification for her programs, which doubled the poverty level in the UK. The woman was really a piece of work.
To follow up on what Yukoner wrote, that interview was given in 87, right after she won her third term. Her first term was a flop, with the Brixton riots occurring at the end, and she was only reelected to a second term in 1983 because she was able to use the Falkland conflict. Going into that 2nd term, she dismantled trade labor unions, most notably the miners in 84-85. At the same time as this speech, planning was taking place for the Community Charge, that was an attempt to undermine local councils that were primarily Labor.
A year later, she gave her ‘Sermon on the Mound‘, which attempted to provide a theological justification for her programs, which doubled the poverty level in the UK. The woman was really a piece of work.
To follow up on what Yukoner wrote, that interview was given in 87, right after she won her third term. Her first term was a flop, with the Brixton riots occurring at the end, and she was only reelected to a second term in 1983 because she was able to use the Falkland conflict. Going into that 2nd term, she dismantled trade labor unions, most notably the miners in 84-85. At the same time as this speech, planning was taking place for the Community Charge, that was an attempt to undermine local councils that were primarily Labor.
A year later, she gave her ‘Sermon on the Mound‘, which attempted to provide a theological justification for her programs, which doubled the poverty level in the UK. The woman was really a piece of work.
Nothing like that. I’m saying that, even in that hypothetical situation, most Democrats would not be paying their share of the cost of government programs.
Maybe I’m dense today, but again, I don’t get what you are arguing here. Maybe a numerical example would help.
Or are you just saying that only Democrats want the government to spend money, so they should be entirely responsible for paying the tab? Or what? Are you referring just to social programs? Then what about defense, which many Democrats might want to see cut?
Or do you think everyone should just pay the same absolute amount of taxes?
Nothing like that. I’m saying that, even in that hypothetical situation, most Democrats would not be paying their share of the cost of government programs.
Maybe I’m dense today, but again, I don’t get what you are arguing here. Maybe a numerical example would help.
Or are you just saying that only Democrats want the government to spend money, so they should be entirely responsible for paying the tab? Or what? Are you referring just to social programs? Then what about defense, which many Democrats might want to see cut?
Or do you think everyone should just pay the same absolute amount of taxes?
Nothing like that. I’m saying that, even in that hypothetical situation, most Democrats would not be paying their share of the cost of government programs.
Maybe I’m dense today, but again, I don’t get what you are arguing here. Maybe a numerical example would help.
Or are you just saying that only Democrats want the government to spend money, so they should be entirely responsible for paying the tab? Or what? Are you referring just to social programs? Then what about defense, which many Democrats might want to see cut?
Or do you think everyone should just pay the same absolute amount of taxes?
I’m saying that, even in that hypothetical situation, most Democrats would not be paying their share of the cost of government programs.
Just out of curiosity, how does the implicit assumption here that Democrats are the ones who mostly take money from the government (i.e. others) square with the fact that the states with big Republican majorities are the ones which have the highest net Federal payments vs Federal taxes paid? Seems like, if the Democrats are the ones sucking at the government teat, they should be net tax payers….
I’m saying that, even in that hypothetical situation, most Democrats would not be paying their share of the cost of government programs.
Just out of curiosity, how does the implicit assumption here that Democrats are the ones who mostly take money from the government (i.e. others) square with the fact that the states with big Republican majorities are the ones which have the highest net Federal payments vs Federal taxes paid? Seems like, if the Democrats are the ones sucking at the government teat, they should be net tax payers….
I’m saying that, even in that hypothetical situation, most Democrats would not be paying their share of the cost of government programs.
Just out of curiosity, how does the implicit assumption here that Democrats are the ones who mostly take money from the government (i.e. others) square with the fact that the states with big Republican majorities are the ones which have the highest net Federal payments vs Federal taxes paid? Seems like, if the Democrats are the ones sucking at the government teat, they should be net tax payers….
Regardless of how the statistics of who pays what share and how much programs favored by whomever cost, it’s so attenuated from individual decision-making and individual policy preferences that it’s nothing more than noise. And anyone who favors a government program – which must cost money at some point, even if it saves it later, once everyone has forgotten why – can be made out not to pay their share when compared to someone who’s against government programs (and their costs).
Regardless of how the statistics of who pays what share and how much programs favored by whomever cost, it’s so attenuated from individual decision-making and individual policy preferences that it’s nothing more than noise. And anyone who favors a government program – which must cost money at some point, even if it saves it later, once everyone has forgotten why – can be made out not to pay their share when compared to someone who’s against government programs (and their costs).
Regardless of how the statistics of who pays what share and how much programs favored by whomever cost, it’s so attenuated from individual decision-making and individual policy preferences that it’s nothing more than noise. And anyone who favors a government program – which must cost money at some point, even if it saves it later, once everyone has forgotten why – can be made out not to pay their share when compared to someone who’s against government programs (and their costs).
None of which says a thing about how worthwhile a given program is, mind you.
None of which says a thing about how worthwhile a given program is, mind you.
None of which says a thing about how worthwhile a given program is, mind you.
It’s easy to advocate requiring somebody else to help the poor.
A moment of reflection will reveal that contributing to the public coffers to help people out via public programs, and contributing personal money to charities to do the same, both work out to contributing to help people out.
Really, your obsessive, knee-jerk animus toward anything government-related makes your comments here kind of a parody of thinking.
I don’t mean to be rude, it’s just at the point where any of us could just write your comments for you.
It’s easy to advocate requiring somebody else to help the poor.
A moment of reflection will reveal that contributing to the public coffers to help people out via public programs, and contributing personal money to charities to do the same, both work out to contributing to help people out.
Really, your obsessive, knee-jerk animus toward anything government-related makes your comments here kind of a parody of thinking.
I don’t mean to be rude, it’s just at the point where any of us could just write your comments for you.
It’s easy to advocate requiring somebody else to help the poor.
A moment of reflection will reveal that contributing to the public coffers to help people out via public programs, and contributing personal money to charities to do the same, both work out to contributing to help people out.
Really, your obsessive, knee-jerk animus toward anything government-related makes your comments here kind of a parody of thinking.
I don’t mean to be rude, it’s just at the point where any of us could just write your comments for you.
regarding income and tax share by quintile, per the CBO as of 2011 the top quintile received a little over half of all pre-tax income, and paid a little less than 70% of all federal taxes.
Those numbers are inclusive of all types of income, and all types of federal tax.
We have a progressive tax system, those figures seem pretty reasonable to me.
YMMV
regarding income and tax share by quintile, per the CBO as of 2011 the top quintile received a little over half of all pre-tax income, and paid a little less than 70% of all federal taxes.
Those numbers are inclusive of all types of income, and all types of federal tax.
We have a progressive tax system, those figures seem pretty reasonable to me.
YMMV
regarding income and tax share by quintile, per the CBO as of 2011 the top quintile received a little over half of all pre-tax income, and paid a little less than 70% of all federal taxes.
Those numbers are inclusive of all types of income, and all types of federal tax.
We have a progressive tax system, those figures seem pretty reasonable to me.
YMMV
And isn’t it great that our government puts all of this information at our fingertips?
And isn’t it great that our government puts all of this information at our fingertips?
And isn’t it great that our government puts all of this information at our fingertips?
It’s easy to advocate requiring somebody else to help the poor.
And it is easier to advocate doing nothing. This is especially so when bathed in the self righteous certitude of moral superiority.
Easy is as easy does, brother. Praise God and pass the donation plate.
It’s easy to advocate requiring somebody else to help the poor.
And it is easier to advocate doing nothing. This is especially so when bathed in the self righteous certitude of moral superiority.
Easy is as easy does, brother. Praise God and pass the donation plate.
It’s easy to advocate requiring somebody else to help the poor.
And it is easier to advocate doing nothing. This is especially so when bathed in the self righteous certitude of moral superiority.
Easy is as easy does, brother. Praise God and pass the donation plate.
We have a progressive tax system
What about sales tax ?
How significant a proportion of revenue is that ?
In the UK it’s pretty high, with VAT at 20%, and (for instance) tax on petrol (gasoline) making our pump prices around double what yours are.
While VAT is not levied on ‘necessities’ such as food, it makes the overall tax equation considerably less progressive.
We have a progressive tax system
What about sales tax ?
How significant a proportion of revenue is that ?
In the UK it’s pretty high, with VAT at 20%, and (for instance) tax on petrol (gasoline) making our pump prices around double what yours are.
While VAT is not levied on ‘necessities’ such as food, it makes the overall tax equation considerably less progressive.
We have a progressive tax system
What about sales tax ?
How significant a proportion of revenue is that ?
In the UK it’s pretty high, with VAT at 20%, and (for instance) tax on petrol (gasoline) making our pump prices around double what yours are.
While VAT is not levied on ‘necessities’ such as food, it makes the overall tax equation considerably less progressive.
“A moment of reflection will reveal that contributing to the public coffers to help people out via public programs, and contributing personal money to charities to do the same, both work out to contributing to help people out.”
Yeah, I’m just pointing out that advocating that said public coffers mostly be filled by a small segment of the population situated unlike yourself, turns it into a case of, “Let’s you and him help the poor”. You’re throwing a nickle into the kitty, and requiring somebody else to throw in a fiver.
“A moment of reflection will reveal that contributing to the public coffers to help people out via public programs, and contributing personal money to charities to do the same, both work out to contributing to help people out.”
Yeah, I’m just pointing out that advocating that said public coffers mostly be filled by a small segment of the population situated unlike yourself, turns it into a case of, “Let’s you and him help the poor”. You’re throwing a nickle into the kitty, and requiring somebody else to throw in a fiver.
“A moment of reflection will reveal that contributing to the public coffers to help people out via public programs, and contributing personal money to charities to do the same, both work out to contributing to help people out.”
Yeah, I’m just pointing out that advocating that said public coffers mostly be filled by a small segment of the population situated unlike yourself, turns it into a case of, “Let’s you and him help the poor”. You’re throwing a nickle into the kitty, and requiring somebody else to throw in a fiver.
situated unlike yourself
you have no idea what my W2 looks like.
situated unlike yourself
you have no idea what my W2 looks like.
situated unlike yourself
you have no idea what my W2 looks like.
That’s true, you could be a slumming millionaire. My favorite site used to be a discussion forum hosted by Pete DuPont.
But I’m fairly confident the majority of people advocating progressive taxation, and welfare over charity, are not millionaires.
That’s true, you could be a slumming millionaire. My favorite site used to be a discussion forum hosted by Pete DuPont.
But I’m fairly confident the majority of people advocating progressive taxation, and welfare over charity, are not millionaires.
That’s true, you could be a slumming millionaire. My favorite site used to be a discussion forum hosted by Pete DuPont.
But I’m fairly confident the majority of people advocating progressive taxation, and welfare over charity, are not millionaires.
You’re throwing a nickle into the kitty, and requiring somebody else to throw in a fiver.
I’m fairly confident the majority of people advocating progressive taxation, and welfare over charity, are not millionaires.
I’m sorry, but this is just stupid.
Do you think that donations to charities doesn’t also vary by income level? Is everybody who argues for letting charity do it all cutting great big checks to the United Way (or whoever)?
Poor people don’t pay much, or any, income tax, yet they donate great sums to charity?
Rich people pay large amounts of taxes, but only nickels to charity?
You just don’t like government as an instrument of addressing this stuff. That’s a perfectly reasonable point of view, although not one I agree with.
Why not just stick with that simple, but reasonable, point, and not twist yourself into making stupid insupportable statements.
We all get that you don’t want government doing any kind of redistribution. Just say that, and leave off the mind-reading and other BS.
You’re throwing a nickle into the kitty, and requiring somebody else to throw in a fiver.
I’m fairly confident the majority of people advocating progressive taxation, and welfare over charity, are not millionaires.
I’m sorry, but this is just stupid.
Do you think that donations to charities doesn’t also vary by income level? Is everybody who argues for letting charity do it all cutting great big checks to the United Way (or whoever)?
Poor people don’t pay much, or any, income tax, yet they donate great sums to charity?
Rich people pay large amounts of taxes, but only nickels to charity?
You just don’t like government as an instrument of addressing this stuff. That’s a perfectly reasonable point of view, although not one I agree with.
Why not just stick with that simple, but reasonable, point, and not twist yourself into making stupid insupportable statements.
We all get that you don’t want government doing any kind of redistribution. Just say that, and leave off the mind-reading and other BS.
You’re throwing a nickle into the kitty, and requiring somebody else to throw in a fiver.
I’m fairly confident the majority of people advocating progressive taxation, and welfare over charity, are not millionaires.
I’m sorry, but this is just stupid.
Do you think that donations to charities doesn’t also vary by income level? Is everybody who argues for letting charity do it all cutting great big checks to the United Way (or whoever)?
Poor people don’t pay much, or any, income tax, yet they donate great sums to charity?
Rich people pay large amounts of taxes, but only nickels to charity?
You just don’t like government as an instrument of addressing this stuff. That’s a perfectly reasonable point of view, although not one I agree with.
Why not just stick with that simple, but reasonable, point, and not twist yourself into making stupid insupportable statements.
We all get that you don’t want government doing any kind of redistribution. Just say that, and leave off the mind-reading and other BS.
Also, the five cent coin is spelled “nickel”.
Glad to be of help.
Also, the five cent coin is spelled “nickel”.
Glad to be of help.
Also, the five cent coin is spelled “nickel”.
Glad to be of help.
What about sales tax ?
How significant a proportion of revenue is that ?
In the US, sales tax is generally a state or local municipality thing, rather than federal.
But you are correct, sales taxes, levied by whoever, tend to be regressive.
At the federal level, the social security and other payroll taxes are either flat or absolutely regressive, which somewhat offsets the progressive nature of the income tax. Those numbers are factored into the CBO numbers I cited upthread.
What about sales tax ?
How significant a proportion of revenue is that ?
In the US, sales tax is generally a state or local municipality thing, rather than federal.
But you are correct, sales taxes, levied by whoever, tend to be regressive.
At the federal level, the social security and other payroll taxes are either flat or absolutely regressive, which somewhat offsets the progressive nature of the income tax. Those numbers are factored into the CBO numbers I cited upthread.
What about sales tax ?
How significant a proportion of revenue is that ?
In the US, sales tax is generally a state or local municipality thing, rather than federal.
But you are correct, sales taxes, levied by whoever, tend to be regressive.
At the federal level, the social security and other payroll taxes are either flat or absolutely regressive, which somewhat offsets the progressive nature of the income tax. Those numbers are factored into the CBO numbers I cited upthread.
“Glad to be of help.”
Thanks, actually. Had that sort of problem ever since the chemo; I find the wrong word slipping in infuriatingly often, and have particular problems with confusing homophones.
“Poor people don’t pay much, or any, income tax, yet they donate great sums to charity?”
Interestingly, while the wealthy tend to donate larger amounts to charity, the percentages tend to go up as you decend the income scale, until you reach income levels where the necessities of survival prevent giving to charity.
“Glad to be of help.”
Thanks, actually. Had that sort of problem ever since the chemo; I find the wrong word slipping in infuriatingly often, and have particular problems with confusing homophones.
“Poor people don’t pay much, or any, income tax, yet they donate great sums to charity?”
Interestingly, while the wealthy tend to donate larger amounts to charity, the percentages tend to go up as you decend the income scale, until you reach income levels where the necessities of survival prevent giving to charity.
“Glad to be of help.”
Thanks, actually. Had that sort of problem ever since the chemo; I find the wrong word slipping in infuriatingly often, and have particular problems with confusing homophones.
“Poor people don’t pay much, or any, income tax, yet they donate great sums to charity?”
Interestingly, while the wealthy tend to donate larger amounts to charity, the percentages tend to go up as you decend the income scale, until you reach income levels where the necessities of survival prevent giving to charity.
I’m fairly confident the majority of people advocating progressive taxation, and welfare over charity, are not millionaires.
I’m sorry, but this is just stupid.
I disagree. It is probably entirely correct and it is probably completely true that the vast majority of those calling for (1) higher taxes and (2) more ‘giving through taxing’ are not themselves in line to pay many if any of the taxes they propose.
From the high taxpayer side, I would like to see a bit more judgment exercised by those who want more of my money. Our national budget is in the trillions. I see no effort, nada, zip, none, to take the bazillions already being gathered and attempting to use them more rationally. Rather, we have these wide ranging, largely pointless discussions of “how much should we do?” rather than the far more pragmatic “are we making rational use of the monies we are taking in?”
Proponents of more taxing and spending need to first establish their competence to manage what they have.
Regardless of how the statistics of who pays what share and how much programs favored by whomever cost, it’s so attenuated from individual decision-making and individual policy preferences that it’s nothing more than noise. And anyone who favors a government program – which must cost money at some point, even if it saves it later, once everyone has forgotten why – can be made out not to pay their share when compared to someone who’s against government programs (and their costs).
I disagree again. If someone pays 35% or more of their annual income in Federal taxes alone, that number is objectively significant. If someone’s income is 98% ‘earned income’, absent stupid investment schemes designed to throw off losses, there are a limited number of tax deferral options (401K and HSA being the main two). Otherwise, you have to spend a dollar to deduct a dollar and basic arithmetic will tell you that spending a dollar to save 42% is a bad deal. The point here is that, despite widespread mythology that high earners don’t pay their share of income tax, that is bullshit. “Earned income” is a term of art for money that, inter alia, is taxed progressively and is subject to very limited deductions. So, there aren’t any meaningful avoidance schemes for the vast majority of high earners.
So, when the discussion gets around, as it often does, to the topic at hand, the subtext is “we need more money for the needy”. Really? And at what point will the needy’s needs be met? Because, front and center, the remaining 60% of what I make is considered fair game for further taxation by those who don’t feel I am giving enough.
There is zero attenuation if the marginal tax rate goes up X points to meet ‘unmet needs’. That increase comes directly out of my pocket.
I am to the concept of helping others. I am not open to being shamed, cajoled or compelled to give more by those who have taken so much already and, having used it so ineffectively, have the stones to ask for more.
PS–I don’t like credentialing as a means of making an argument. Let me just say my personal observations on the topic of charitable giving cover several decades and a multitude of charitable endeavors that gov’t simply cannot address. Aside from the money, which is considerable, huge amounts of limited time are expended by people who have plenty of other things to do. There is a very real misapprehension about high earners, charitable giving and the impact of charitable giving and those whose narratives compel them to believe otherwise are victims of their own prejudices, not hard facts.
I’m fairly confident the majority of people advocating progressive taxation, and welfare over charity, are not millionaires.
I’m sorry, but this is just stupid.
I disagree. It is probably entirely correct and it is probably completely true that the vast majority of those calling for (1) higher taxes and (2) more ‘giving through taxing’ are not themselves in line to pay many if any of the taxes they propose.
From the high taxpayer side, I would like to see a bit more judgment exercised by those who want more of my money. Our national budget is in the trillions. I see no effort, nada, zip, none, to take the bazillions already being gathered and attempting to use them more rationally. Rather, we have these wide ranging, largely pointless discussions of “how much should we do?” rather than the far more pragmatic “are we making rational use of the monies we are taking in?”
Proponents of more taxing and spending need to first establish their competence to manage what they have.
Regardless of how the statistics of who pays what share and how much programs favored by whomever cost, it’s so attenuated from individual decision-making and individual policy preferences that it’s nothing more than noise. And anyone who favors a government program – which must cost money at some point, even if it saves it later, once everyone has forgotten why – can be made out not to pay their share when compared to someone who’s against government programs (and their costs).
I disagree again. If someone pays 35% or more of their annual income in Federal taxes alone, that number is objectively significant. If someone’s income is 98% ‘earned income’, absent stupid investment schemes designed to throw off losses, there are a limited number of tax deferral options (401K and HSA being the main two). Otherwise, you have to spend a dollar to deduct a dollar and basic arithmetic will tell you that spending a dollar to save 42% is a bad deal. The point here is that, despite widespread mythology that high earners don’t pay their share of income tax, that is bullshit. “Earned income” is a term of art for money that, inter alia, is taxed progressively and is subject to very limited deductions. So, there aren’t any meaningful avoidance schemes for the vast majority of high earners.
So, when the discussion gets around, as it often does, to the topic at hand, the subtext is “we need more money for the needy”. Really? And at what point will the needy’s needs be met? Because, front and center, the remaining 60% of what I make is considered fair game for further taxation by those who don’t feel I am giving enough.
There is zero attenuation if the marginal tax rate goes up X points to meet ‘unmet needs’. That increase comes directly out of my pocket.
I am to the concept of helping others. I am not open to being shamed, cajoled or compelled to give more by those who have taken so much already and, having used it so ineffectively, have the stones to ask for more.
PS–I don’t like credentialing as a means of making an argument. Let me just say my personal observations on the topic of charitable giving cover several decades and a multitude of charitable endeavors that gov’t simply cannot address. Aside from the money, which is considerable, huge amounts of limited time are expended by people who have plenty of other things to do. There is a very real misapprehension about high earners, charitable giving and the impact of charitable giving and those whose narratives compel them to believe otherwise are victims of their own prejudices, not hard facts.
I’m fairly confident the majority of people advocating progressive taxation, and welfare over charity, are not millionaires.
I’m sorry, but this is just stupid.
I disagree. It is probably entirely correct and it is probably completely true that the vast majority of those calling for (1) higher taxes and (2) more ‘giving through taxing’ are not themselves in line to pay many if any of the taxes they propose.
From the high taxpayer side, I would like to see a bit more judgment exercised by those who want more of my money. Our national budget is in the trillions. I see no effort, nada, zip, none, to take the bazillions already being gathered and attempting to use them more rationally. Rather, we have these wide ranging, largely pointless discussions of “how much should we do?” rather than the far more pragmatic “are we making rational use of the monies we are taking in?”
Proponents of more taxing and spending need to first establish their competence to manage what they have.
Regardless of how the statistics of who pays what share and how much programs favored by whomever cost, it’s so attenuated from individual decision-making and individual policy preferences that it’s nothing more than noise. And anyone who favors a government program – which must cost money at some point, even if it saves it later, once everyone has forgotten why – can be made out not to pay their share when compared to someone who’s against government programs (and their costs).
I disagree again. If someone pays 35% or more of their annual income in Federal taxes alone, that number is objectively significant. If someone’s income is 98% ‘earned income’, absent stupid investment schemes designed to throw off losses, there are a limited number of tax deferral options (401K and HSA being the main two). Otherwise, you have to spend a dollar to deduct a dollar and basic arithmetic will tell you that spending a dollar to save 42% is a bad deal. The point here is that, despite widespread mythology that high earners don’t pay their share of income tax, that is bullshit. “Earned income” is a term of art for money that, inter alia, is taxed progressively and is subject to very limited deductions. So, there aren’t any meaningful avoidance schemes for the vast majority of high earners.
So, when the discussion gets around, as it often does, to the topic at hand, the subtext is “we need more money for the needy”. Really? And at what point will the needy’s needs be met? Because, front and center, the remaining 60% of what I make is considered fair game for further taxation by those who don’t feel I am giving enough.
There is zero attenuation if the marginal tax rate goes up X points to meet ‘unmet needs’. That increase comes directly out of my pocket.
I am to the concept of helping others. I am not open to being shamed, cajoled or compelled to give more by those who have taken so much already and, having used it so ineffectively, have the stones to ask for more.
PS–I don’t like credentialing as a means of making an argument. Let me just say my personal observations on the topic of charitable giving cover several decades and a multitude of charitable endeavors that gov’t simply cannot address. Aside from the money, which is considerable, huge amounts of limited time are expended by people who have plenty of other things to do. There is a very real misapprehension about high earners, charitable giving and the impact of charitable giving and those whose narratives compel them to believe otherwise are victims of their own prejudices, not hard facts.
while the wealthy tend to donate larger amounts to charity, the percentages tend to go up as you decend the income scale
First, if you want to persist in this argument, at some point you’ll need to show your work. Numbers, references to some source for this information, etc.
What I think you will actually find is that the curve is U-shaped, but I’ll leave you to it if you want to go dig.
Second, as has been noted upthread, not all “charitable” giving goes to relieve people who are in any kind of financial distress. So, if you want to pursue this line of argument, you will need to not only show who gives, and in what amounts, but what the money is used for.
But in any case, the basic claim you are making is bullshit. People of all income levels argue for government involvement in addressing the consequences of poverty, and people of all income levels also say that it should be left to charity.
The claim that folks arguing for government involvement are “making that other guy do it” is horseshit.
If you’d like to go dig up some actual information that supports the claim that opinions about government vs charity vary with income level, or amount of tax paid, by all means have at it.
I’d start with explaining how that squares with your other claim (likely false) that the poor – the folks who pay the least in taxes, and therefore would be most likely, according to you, to want the feds to bail them out – also contribute the most in charity, as a percentage of income.
So, by all means continue down this path if you like, but you have some work to do.
while the wealthy tend to donate larger amounts to charity, the percentages tend to go up as you decend the income scale
First, if you want to persist in this argument, at some point you’ll need to show your work. Numbers, references to some source for this information, etc.
What I think you will actually find is that the curve is U-shaped, but I’ll leave you to it if you want to go dig.
Second, as has been noted upthread, not all “charitable” giving goes to relieve people who are in any kind of financial distress. So, if you want to pursue this line of argument, you will need to not only show who gives, and in what amounts, but what the money is used for.
But in any case, the basic claim you are making is bullshit. People of all income levels argue for government involvement in addressing the consequences of poverty, and people of all income levels also say that it should be left to charity.
The claim that folks arguing for government involvement are “making that other guy do it” is horseshit.
If you’d like to go dig up some actual information that supports the claim that opinions about government vs charity vary with income level, or amount of tax paid, by all means have at it.
I’d start with explaining how that squares with your other claim (likely false) that the poor – the folks who pay the least in taxes, and therefore would be most likely, according to you, to want the feds to bail them out – also contribute the most in charity, as a percentage of income.
So, by all means continue down this path if you like, but you have some work to do.
while the wealthy tend to donate larger amounts to charity, the percentages tend to go up as you decend the income scale
First, if you want to persist in this argument, at some point you’ll need to show your work. Numbers, references to some source for this information, etc.
What I think you will actually find is that the curve is U-shaped, but I’ll leave you to it if you want to go dig.
Second, as has been noted upthread, not all “charitable” giving goes to relieve people who are in any kind of financial distress. So, if you want to pursue this line of argument, you will need to not only show who gives, and in what amounts, but what the money is used for.
But in any case, the basic claim you are making is bullshit. People of all income levels argue for government involvement in addressing the consequences of poverty, and people of all income levels also say that it should be left to charity.
The claim that folks arguing for government involvement are “making that other guy do it” is horseshit.
If you’d like to go dig up some actual information that supports the claim that opinions about government vs charity vary with income level, or amount of tax paid, by all means have at it.
I’d start with explaining how that squares with your other claim (likely false) that the poor – the folks who pay the least in taxes, and therefore would be most likely, according to you, to want the feds to bail them out – also contribute the most in charity, as a percentage of income.
So, by all means continue down this path if you like, but you have some work to do.
What I’d really like is to not obsess about “who is responsible for the poor?” and instead ask “why are so many people poor?”
And, can anything be done about it? Not handouts, but changes that will result in them finding, or inventing, or somehow acquiring, useful and remunerative work?
And, if something can be done, *whose job is it to do it*?
Do we just wait for the magic Invisible Hand to drive wages here down far enough that American labor can compete with folks who just left the water buffalo farm somewhere in Burma?
We’re sort of half-way to that now, and what we see is that in many or most places, people making anything in the vicinity of minimum wage don’t make enough money to pay rent, buy food, go the doctor, and keep a car on the road.
How much worse does that have to get? Do we wait until everybody is so poor that the price of everything else ends up coming down as well? How does that happen without also pissing away the current value of things like real estate, land, and infrastructure?
Is it our job, as a polity, to try to understand and address those things, or do we just wait around until everything reaches homeostasis?
Wherever that ends up being?
What I’d really like is to not obsess about “who is responsible for the poor?” and instead ask “why are so many people poor?”
And, can anything be done about it? Not handouts, but changes that will result in them finding, or inventing, or somehow acquiring, useful and remunerative work?
And, if something can be done, *whose job is it to do it*?
Do we just wait for the magic Invisible Hand to drive wages here down far enough that American labor can compete with folks who just left the water buffalo farm somewhere in Burma?
We’re sort of half-way to that now, and what we see is that in many or most places, people making anything in the vicinity of minimum wage don’t make enough money to pay rent, buy food, go the doctor, and keep a car on the road.
How much worse does that have to get? Do we wait until everybody is so poor that the price of everything else ends up coming down as well? How does that happen without also pissing away the current value of things like real estate, land, and infrastructure?
Is it our job, as a polity, to try to understand and address those things, or do we just wait around until everything reaches homeostasis?
Wherever that ends up being?
What I’d really like is to not obsess about “who is responsible for the poor?” and instead ask “why are so many people poor?”
And, can anything be done about it? Not handouts, but changes that will result in them finding, or inventing, or somehow acquiring, useful and remunerative work?
And, if something can be done, *whose job is it to do it*?
Do we just wait for the magic Invisible Hand to drive wages here down far enough that American labor can compete with folks who just left the water buffalo farm somewhere in Burma?
We’re sort of half-way to that now, and what we see is that in many or most places, people making anything in the vicinity of minimum wage don’t make enough money to pay rent, buy food, go the doctor, and keep a car on the road.
How much worse does that have to get? Do we wait until everybody is so poor that the price of everything else ends up coming down as well? How does that happen without also pissing away the current value of things like real estate, land, and infrastructure?
Is it our job, as a polity, to try to understand and address those things, or do we just wait around until everything reaches homeostasis?
Wherever that ends up being?
I disagree again.
You might not have gotten my point, McKinney, since you came in late and given your response. Brett is using income percentiles as they correlate (to whatever extent) to party affiliation to demonstrate that Democrats don’t pay their share of taxes but favor all these give-aways to the poor, as though individuals who vote for Democtrats are formulating their policy preferences based on whatever percentage of Democrats fall into whatever quintile and what percentage of total federal taxes people in those quintiles pay.
It’s utterly daft.
I’m not saying anyting here about what program X dollars should be spent on or what marginal tax rates should be. I’m just calling BS on Brett’s BS argument.
I disagree again.
You might not have gotten my point, McKinney, since you came in late and given your response. Brett is using income percentiles as they correlate (to whatever extent) to party affiliation to demonstrate that Democrats don’t pay their share of taxes but favor all these give-aways to the poor, as though individuals who vote for Democtrats are formulating their policy preferences based on whatever percentage of Democrats fall into whatever quintile and what percentage of total federal taxes people in those quintiles pay.
It’s utterly daft.
I’m not saying anyting here about what program X dollars should be spent on or what marginal tax rates should be. I’m just calling BS on Brett’s BS argument.
I disagree again.
You might not have gotten my point, McKinney, since you came in late and given your response. Brett is using income percentiles as they correlate (to whatever extent) to party affiliation to demonstrate that Democrats don’t pay their share of taxes but favor all these give-aways to the poor, as though individuals who vote for Democtrats are formulating their policy preferences based on whatever percentage of Democrats fall into whatever quintile and what percentage of total federal taxes people in those quintiles pay.
It’s utterly daft.
I’m not saying anyting here about what program X dollars should be spent on or what marginal tax rates should be. I’m just calling BS on Brett’s BS argument.
It is probably entirely correct and it is probably completely true that the vast majority of those calling for (1) higher taxes and (2) more ‘giving through taxing’ are not themselves in line to pay many if any of the taxes they propose.
True as stated, because the majority of any group of people selected by any criteria other than income level *are not going to have that much money*.
Because a lot of people in this country *don’t have a lot of money*.
are we making rational use of the monies we are taking in?
Yes, that’s an excellent question.
How that applies to the government differently that it applies to private organizations, charitable or otherwise, escapes me.
People shouldn’t waste the resources they are responsible for managing. Consider the point ceded.
So, when the discussion gets around, as it often does, to the topic at hand, the subtext is “we need more money for the needy”. Really?
As the OP on this thread, I’m here to say that that *was not the subtext of the post*. Not the text, not the subtext, not the supertext, no kinda text at all.
The needy don’t need our money. They need a way to not be needy.
There are people who, due to some irremediable problem or other, can’t do for themselves. I’m sure we’re all on board with helping them.
Those people aren’t the problem. The problem are the millions and millions and millions of people who can’t, in our current environment, find a way to acquire anything resembling a financially secure life.
Not great wealth, just something more than staying a tiny step ahead of bankruptcy for 40 years, then living on a $10K a year SS stipend.
Why are there so many of those people?
Is there something that can be done about it? Not stupid handouts, but investment in infrastructure, basic industrial planning, education, micro-loans to start small businesses, whatever.
Is there something that can be done by *anybody*, I don’t care who, to address that?
And if so, whose job is it? Is it the job of the body politic, working through public means, or are we required to keep our hands off and wait for the private sector – charitable, for-profit, whatever – to make it all happen?
Or, do we all just sit on our hands and wait for everything to take its course and see where we land?
It is probably entirely correct and it is probably completely true that the vast majority of those calling for (1) higher taxes and (2) more ‘giving through taxing’ are not themselves in line to pay many if any of the taxes they propose.
True as stated, because the majority of any group of people selected by any criteria other than income level *are not going to have that much money*.
Because a lot of people in this country *don’t have a lot of money*.
are we making rational use of the monies we are taking in?
Yes, that’s an excellent question.
How that applies to the government differently that it applies to private organizations, charitable or otherwise, escapes me.
People shouldn’t waste the resources they are responsible for managing. Consider the point ceded.
So, when the discussion gets around, as it often does, to the topic at hand, the subtext is “we need more money for the needy”. Really?
As the OP on this thread, I’m here to say that that *was not the subtext of the post*. Not the text, not the subtext, not the supertext, no kinda text at all.
The needy don’t need our money. They need a way to not be needy.
There are people who, due to some irremediable problem or other, can’t do for themselves. I’m sure we’re all on board with helping them.
Those people aren’t the problem. The problem are the millions and millions and millions of people who can’t, in our current environment, find a way to acquire anything resembling a financially secure life.
Not great wealth, just something more than staying a tiny step ahead of bankruptcy for 40 years, then living on a $10K a year SS stipend.
Why are there so many of those people?
Is there something that can be done about it? Not stupid handouts, but investment in infrastructure, basic industrial planning, education, micro-loans to start small businesses, whatever.
Is there something that can be done by *anybody*, I don’t care who, to address that?
And if so, whose job is it? Is it the job of the body politic, working through public means, or are we required to keep our hands off and wait for the private sector – charitable, for-profit, whatever – to make it all happen?
Or, do we all just sit on our hands and wait for everything to take its course and see where we land?
It is probably entirely correct and it is probably completely true that the vast majority of those calling for (1) higher taxes and (2) more ‘giving through taxing’ are not themselves in line to pay many if any of the taxes they propose.
True as stated, because the majority of any group of people selected by any criteria other than income level *are not going to have that much money*.
Because a lot of people in this country *don’t have a lot of money*.
are we making rational use of the monies we are taking in?
Yes, that’s an excellent question.
How that applies to the government differently that it applies to private organizations, charitable or otherwise, escapes me.
People shouldn’t waste the resources they are responsible for managing. Consider the point ceded.
So, when the discussion gets around, as it often does, to the topic at hand, the subtext is “we need more money for the needy”. Really?
As the OP on this thread, I’m here to say that that *was not the subtext of the post*. Not the text, not the subtext, not the supertext, no kinda text at all.
The needy don’t need our money. They need a way to not be needy.
There are people who, due to some irremediable problem or other, can’t do for themselves. I’m sure we’re all on board with helping them.
Those people aren’t the problem. The problem are the millions and millions and millions of people who can’t, in our current environment, find a way to acquire anything resembling a financially secure life.
Not great wealth, just something more than staying a tiny step ahead of bankruptcy for 40 years, then living on a $10K a year SS stipend.
Why are there so many of those people?
Is there something that can be done about it? Not stupid handouts, but investment in infrastructure, basic industrial planning, education, micro-loans to start small businesses, whatever.
Is there something that can be done by *anybody*, I don’t care who, to address that?
And if so, whose job is it? Is it the job of the body politic, working through public means, or are we required to keep our hands off and wait for the private sector – charitable, for-profit, whatever – to make it all happen?
Or, do we all just sit on our hands and wait for everything to take its course and see where we land?
Welcome back, McKinney. I missed your particular style of wrongness recently:)
No time right now to “unpack” that, but one thing that you’re stylistically wrong about is this: the feds tax your income, not you. It’s business, it’s not personal, if you’ll pardon the cue to Brett to give us an encore of his “protection racket” aria.
–TP
Welcome back, McKinney. I missed your particular style of wrongness recently:)
No time right now to “unpack” that, but one thing that you’re stylistically wrong about is this: the feds tax your income, not you. It’s business, it’s not personal, if you’ll pardon the cue to Brett to give us an encore of his “protection racket” aria.
–TP
Welcome back, McKinney. I missed your particular style of wrongness recently:)
No time right now to “unpack” that, but one thing that you’re stylistically wrong about is this: the feds tax your income, not you. It’s business, it’s not personal, if you’ll pardon the cue to Brett to give us an encore of his “protection racket” aria.
–TP
Again, I think russell is dead on at 9:02. Those are the questions we should ask, and aren’t.
And, can anything be done about it?
Infrastructure. That work is hard to export.
End the drug war and enact sentencing reform. Fewer people will be permanently marred by long periods of incarceration.
Tax reform. Remove the thumb on scales that overvalues investments and home ownership.
Again, I think russell is dead on at 9:02. Those are the questions we should ask, and aren’t.
And, can anything be done about it?
Infrastructure. That work is hard to export.
End the drug war and enact sentencing reform. Fewer people will be permanently marred by long periods of incarceration.
Tax reform. Remove the thumb on scales that overvalues investments and home ownership.
Again, I think russell is dead on at 9:02. Those are the questions we should ask, and aren’t.
And, can anything be done about it?
Infrastructure. That work is hard to export.
End the drug war and enact sentencing reform. Fewer people will be permanently marred by long periods of incarceration.
Tax reform. Remove the thumb on scales that overvalues investments and home ownership.
There’s so much potential work out there it’s sickening.
I regularly drive through what are almost entirely abandandoned and rotting neighborhoods. The buildings are decaying and are beyond repair. They need to be razed and something else needs to be in these places. The off-the-cuff, not terribly creative things that come to mind are parks. But whatever – farms, playgrounds, any combination of those things.
There are roads with more square footage of potholes than intact asphalt. There’s trash to be picked up. There are places where they need more cops and better cops. Pay them. There are places where they need more teachers and better teachers. Pay them.
We have large swaths of major cities all across this country that are essentially little, hopeless slices of hell. People need work and better places to live.
I’m focused on these problems, the solutions to which require paying people to do things. There are the things I see in my life, where I find there is tremendous value to be created. I’m sure other people have different experiences and can come up with equally worthwhile things for people who don’t currently have work in this country to do.
Where’s the money going to come from? Let the feds print the sh1t for all I care. Don’t raise McKinney’s taxes one red cent. I’m not afraid of that. If the real resources exist – the people and the stuff and the know-how – in sufficient quantity, the money will work itself out just fine. We’ll be better off in the long run.
There’s so much potential work out there it’s sickening.
I regularly drive through what are almost entirely abandandoned and rotting neighborhoods. The buildings are decaying and are beyond repair. They need to be razed and something else needs to be in these places. The off-the-cuff, not terribly creative things that come to mind are parks. But whatever – farms, playgrounds, any combination of those things.
There are roads with more square footage of potholes than intact asphalt. There’s trash to be picked up. There are places where they need more cops and better cops. Pay them. There are places where they need more teachers and better teachers. Pay them.
We have large swaths of major cities all across this country that are essentially little, hopeless slices of hell. People need work and better places to live.
I’m focused on these problems, the solutions to which require paying people to do things. There are the things I see in my life, where I find there is tremendous value to be created. I’m sure other people have different experiences and can come up with equally worthwhile things for people who don’t currently have work in this country to do.
Where’s the money going to come from? Let the feds print the sh1t for all I care. Don’t raise McKinney’s taxes one red cent. I’m not afraid of that. If the real resources exist – the people and the stuff and the know-how – in sufficient quantity, the money will work itself out just fine. We’ll be better off in the long run.
There’s so much potential work out there it’s sickening.
I regularly drive through what are almost entirely abandandoned and rotting neighborhoods. The buildings are decaying and are beyond repair. They need to be razed and something else needs to be in these places. The off-the-cuff, not terribly creative things that come to mind are parks. But whatever – farms, playgrounds, any combination of those things.
There are roads with more square footage of potholes than intact asphalt. There’s trash to be picked up. There are places where they need more cops and better cops. Pay them. There are places where they need more teachers and better teachers. Pay them.
We have large swaths of major cities all across this country that are essentially little, hopeless slices of hell. People need work and better places to live.
I’m focused on these problems, the solutions to which require paying people to do things. There are the things I see in my life, where I find there is tremendous value to be created. I’m sure other people have different experiences and can come up with equally worthwhile things for people who don’t currently have work in this country to do.
Where’s the money going to come from? Let the feds print the sh1t for all I care. Don’t raise McKinney’s taxes one red cent. I’m not afraid of that. If the real resources exist – the people and the stuff and the know-how – in sufficient quantity, the money will work itself out just fine. We’ll be better off in the long run.
I’m fairly confident the majority of people advocating progressive taxation, and welfare over charity, are not millionaires.
A majority? Probably not. After all, millionaires are a small fraction of the population.
But perhaps the question ought to be, what is the proportion of millionaires in favor of progressive taxation compared to the proportion of non-millionaires? After all, I suspect that it is also true that a numerical majority of those calling for a flat tax are not millionaires. 😉
People can be philosophically inclined to favor policies which are not entirely in their personal narrow economic interest.
I’m fairly confident the majority of people advocating progressive taxation, and welfare over charity, are not millionaires.
A majority? Probably not. After all, millionaires are a small fraction of the population.
But perhaps the question ought to be, what is the proportion of millionaires in favor of progressive taxation compared to the proportion of non-millionaires? After all, I suspect that it is also true that a numerical majority of those calling for a flat tax are not millionaires. 😉
People can be philosophically inclined to favor policies which are not entirely in their personal narrow economic interest.
I’m fairly confident the majority of people advocating progressive taxation, and welfare over charity, are not millionaires.
A majority? Probably not. After all, millionaires are a small fraction of the population.
But perhaps the question ought to be, what is the proportion of millionaires in favor of progressive taxation compared to the proportion of non-millionaires? After all, I suspect that it is also true that a numerical majority of those calling for a flat tax are not millionaires. 😉
People can be philosophically inclined to favor policies which are not entirely in their personal narrow economic interest.
What is, perhaps, special about this forum is that we have both those on the right and those on the left arguing for the same position:
Don’t give more money to the poor; figure out how to get them work (which, necessarily, must be work that pays adequately) so they can support themselves.
They both tend to argue against something else that the other side hasn’t said on that. Or shift onto other issues altogether. And how to accomplish it is not agreed on. But on that, we seem to be in general agreement.
What is, perhaps, special about this forum is that we have both those on the right and those on the left arguing for the same position:
Don’t give more money to the poor; figure out how to get them work (which, necessarily, must be work that pays adequately) so they can support themselves.
They both tend to argue against something else that the other side hasn’t said on that. Or shift onto other issues altogether. And how to accomplish it is not agreed on. But on that, we seem to be in general agreement.
What is, perhaps, special about this forum is that we have both those on the right and those on the left arguing for the same position:
Don’t give more money to the poor; figure out how to get them work (which, necessarily, must be work that pays adequately) so they can support themselves.
They both tend to argue against something else that the other side hasn’t said on that. Or shift onto other issues altogether. And how to accomplish it is not agreed on. But on that, we seem to be in general agreement.
After all, I suspect that it is also true that a numerical majority of those calling for a flat tax are not millionaires. 😉
Bingo!
After all, I suspect that it is also true that a numerical majority of those calling for a flat tax are not millionaires. 😉
Bingo!
After all, I suspect that it is also true that a numerical majority of those calling for a flat tax are not millionaires. 😉
Bingo!
On the state and local levels, occupational licensing and zoning have an impact on whether people can become self-sufficient.
On the state and local levels, occupational licensing and zoning have an impact on whether people can become self-sufficient.
On the state and local levels, occupational licensing and zoning have an impact on whether people can become self-sufficient.
Let me just say my personal observations on the topic of charitable giving cover several decades and a multitude of charitable endeavors that gov’t simply cannot address. Aside from the money, which is considerable, huge amounts of limited time are expended by people who have plenty of other things to do.
Cannot address, or does not address? Those are two very different things, and when vast swathes of those running governments in the US have intense ideological opposition to government charitable endeavors being seen as feasible, let alone practical, the anecdatal pool of examples very quickly becomes tainted.
Let me just say my personal observations on the topic of charitable giving cover several decades and a multitude of charitable endeavors that gov’t simply cannot address. Aside from the money, which is considerable, huge amounts of limited time are expended by people who have plenty of other things to do.
Cannot address, or does not address? Those are two very different things, and when vast swathes of those running governments in the US have intense ideological opposition to government charitable endeavors being seen as feasible, let alone practical, the anecdatal pool of examples very quickly becomes tainted.
Let me just say my personal observations on the topic of charitable giving cover several decades and a multitude of charitable endeavors that gov’t simply cannot address. Aside from the money, which is considerable, huge amounts of limited time are expended by people who have plenty of other things to do.
Cannot address, or does not address? Those are two very different things, and when vast swathes of those running governments in the US have intense ideological opposition to government charitable endeavors being seen as feasible, let alone practical, the anecdatal pool of examples very quickly becomes tainted.
It is probably entirely correct and it is probably completely true that the vast majority of those calling for (1) higher taxes and (2) more ‘giving through taxing’ are not themselves in line to pay many if any of the taxes they propose.
Yes. Because the vast majority of people are not millionaires, so I don’t see the point exactly. The vast majority of people calling for war with Iran are not in the military. The vast majority of those who oppose stiffer EPA regulation of coal-burning plants don’t live near such a plant, etc.
As to the 35% tax on earned income, that gets just a smidge of sympathy, but only the tiniest. A single taxpayer does not hit the 35% bracket until taxable income is $405,000. And that first, paltry, $405K is not taxed at 35%. If you are making seven figures, or eight, then maybe you can afford it.
Still, the big scam is not earned income, but unearned. We all recall, I’m certain, that Mr. Romney, in the few tax returns he released, was paying around 15% of his income in taxes. That is not unusual among the big investment types. Counting the employer portion of FICA and Medicare that’s about what a minimum wage worker pays, and here comes the GOP wanting to take that number (Romney’s, not the hamburger flipper’s) to zero.
If you are going to complain about injustice in the rax system, I call that issue to your attention.
It is probably entirely correct and it is probably completely true that the vast majority of those calling for (1) higher taxes and (2) more ‘giving through taxing’ are not themselves in line to pay many if any of the taxes they propose.
Yes. Because the vast majority of people are not millionaires, so I don’t see the point exactly. The vast majority of people calling for war with Iran are not in the military. The vast majority of those who oppose stiffer EPA regulation of coal-burning plants don’t live near such a plant, etc.
As to the 35% tax on earned income, that gets just a smidge of sympathy, but only the tiniest. A single taxpayer does not hit the 35% bracket until taxable income is $405,000. And that first, paltry, $405K is not taxed at 35%. If you are making seven figures, or eight, then maybe you can afford it.
Still, the big scam is not earned income, but unearned. We all recall, I’m certain, that Mr. Romney, in the few tax returns he released, was paying around 15% of his income in taxes. That is not unusual among the big investment types. Counting the employer portion of FICA and Medicare that’s about what a minimum wage worker pays, and here comes the GOP wanting to take that number (Romney’s, not the hamburger flipper’s) to zero.
If you are going to complain about injustice in the rax system, I call that issue to your attention.
It is probably entirely correct and it is probably completely true that the vast majority of those calling for (1) higher taxes and (2) more ‘giving through taxing’ are not themselves in line to pay many if any of the taxes they propose.
Yes. Because the vast majority of people are not millionaires, so I don’t see the point exactly. The vast majority of people calling for war with Iran are not in the military. The vast majority of those who oppose stiffer EPA regulation of coal-burning plants don’t live near such a plant, etc.
As to the 35% tax on earned income, that gets just a smidge of sympathy, but only the tiniest. A single taxpayer does not hit the 35% bracket until taxable income is $405,000. And that first, paltry, $405K is not taxed at 35%. If you are making seven figures, or eight, then maybe you can afford it.
Still, the big scam is not earned income, but unearned. We all recall, I’m certain, that Mr. Romney, in the few tax returns he released, was paying around 15% of his income in taxes. That is not unusual among the big investment types. Counting the employer portion of FICA and Medicare that’s about what a minimum wage worker pays, and here comes the GOP wanting to take that number (Romney’s, not the hamburger flipper’s) to zero.
If you are going to complain about injustice in the rax system, I call that issue to your attention.
Let me just say my personal observations on the topic of charitable giving cover several decades and a multitude of charitable endeavors that gov’t simply cannot address. Aside from the money, which is considerable, huge amounts of limited time are expended by people who have plenty of other things to do.
I don’t think anybody here is disparaging charitable giving.
In fact, I think if we could address any and all social or economic problems by charitable giving, it would be great.
Problem solved. Our work here is done. Next problem, please!
Total charitable giving in the US in 2013 was $416 billion, per the LA Times.
That is a hell of a lot of money. Not all of it went directly to helping people facing some kind of hardship, but certainly a lot of it did.
Spending on education, health, and unemployment for fiscal 2015 was a little over a trillion dollars.
That *excludes* Social Security and Medicare, which are just short of another $1.4 trillion.
Without in any way denigrating the charitable contributions of time and money that people make, there is an issue of scale to consider.
Let me just say my personal observations on the topic of charitable giving cover several decades and a multitude of charitable endeavors that gov’t simply cannot address. Aside from the money, which is considerable, huge amounts of limited time are expended by people who have plenty of other things to do.
I don’t think anybody here is disparaging charitable giving.
In fact, I think if we could address any and all social or economic problems by charitable giving, it would be great.
Problem solved. Our work here is done. Next problem, please!
Total charitable giving in the US in 2013 was $416 billion, per the LA Times.
That is a hell of a lot of money. Not all of it went directly to helping people facing some kind of hardship, but certainly a lot of it did.
Spending on education, health, and unemployment for fiscal 2015 was a little over a trillion dollars.
That *excludes* Social Security and Medicare, which are just short of another $1.4 trillion.
Without in any way denigrating the charitable contributions of time and money that people make, there is an issue of scale to consider.
Let me just say my personal observations on the topic of charitable giving cover several decades and a multitude of charitable endeavors that gov’t simply cannot address. Aside from the money, which is considerable, huge amounts of limited time are expended by people who have plenty of other things to do.
I don’t think anybody here is disparaging charitable giving.
In fact, I think if we could address any and all social or economic problems by charitable giving, it would be great.
Problem solved. Our work here is done. Next problem, please!
Total charitable giving in the US in 2013 was $416 billion, per the LA Times.
That is a hell of a lot of money. Not all of it went directly to helping people facing some kind of hardship, but certainly a lot of it did.
Spending on education, health, and unemployment for fiscal 2015 was a little over a trillion dollars.
That *excludes* Social Security and Medicare, which are just short of another $1.4 trillion.
Without in any way denigrating the charitable contributions of time and money that people make, there is an issue of scale to consider.
Like I said, government comes in, cuts down the forest, and replaces it with a monoculture. And a generation later, people insist that forests are impossible, because, look, there’s all these tons of planted trees, and only a few spindly saplings growing wild.
You think maybe the fact that the government is taking people’s money, and handing it out to other people, gives folks both less money to be charitable with, and less motive to be charitable?
Like I said, government comes in, cuts down the forest, and replaces it with a monoculture. And a generation later, people insist that forests are impossible, because, look, there’s all these tons of planted trees, and only a few spindly saplings growing wild.
You think maybe the fact that the government is taking people’s money, and handing it out to other people, gives folks both less money to be charitable with, and less motive to be charitable?
Like I said, government comes in, cuts down the forest, and replaces it with a monoculture. And a generation later, people insist that forests are impossible, because, look, there’s all these tons of planted trees, and only a few spindly saplings growing wild.
You think maybe the fact that the government is taking people’s money, and handing it out to other people, gives folks both less money to be charitable with, and less motive to be charitable?
Can you give a real-world example of whatever it is for which you’re using forests as a metaphor? It’s very hard to know what the hell you’re talking about.
Can you give a real-world example of whatever it is for which you’re using forests as a metaphor? It’s very hard to know what the hell you’re talking about.
Can you give a real-world example of whatever it is for which you’re using forests as a metaphor? It’s very hard to know what the hell you’re talking about.
You think maybe the fact that the government is taking people’s money,
The government creates the money.
and handing it out to other people,
All taxing and spending decisions by the federal government involve re-routing money from somebody’s pocket to somebody else’s.
gives folks both less money to be charitable with..
A non-sequitur.
and less motive to be charitable?
What next? A lecture on the evils of altruism?
You think maybe the fact that the government is taking people’s money,
The government creates the money.
and handing it out to other people,
All taxing and spending decisions by the federal government involve re-routing money from somebody’s pocket to somebody else’s.
gives folks both less money to be charitable with..
A non-sequitur.
and less motive to be charitable?
What next? A lecture on the evils of altruism?
You think maybe the fact that the government is taking people’s money,
The government creates the money.
and handing it out to other people,
All taxing and spending decisions by the federal government involve re-routing money from somebody’s pocket to somebody else’s.
gives folks both less money to be charitable with..
A non-sequitur.
and less motive to be charitable?
What next? A lecture on the evils of altruism?
What Brett means is that government, by dominating the “give money to poor people” landscape, has made it COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for charities to hire low-skill workers to fix potholes in our decaying roads, and thereby give them meaningful jobs.
Or something. Sometimes it’s hard to see the spindly trees for the monoculture forest.
What Brett means is that government, by dominating the “give money to poor people” landscape, has made it COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for charities to hire low-skill workers to fix potholes in our decaying roads, and thereby give them meaningful jobs.
Or something. Sometimes it’s hard to see the spindly trees for the monoculture forest.
What Brett means is that government, by dominating the “give money to poor people” landscape, has made it COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for charities to hire low-skill workers to fix potholes in our decaying roads, and thereby give them meaningful jobs.
Or something. Sometimes it’s hard to see the spindly trees for the monoculture forest.
Well, there is this…
Big government is monoculture
Well, there is this…
Big government is monoculture
Well, there is this…
Big government is monoculture
Like I said, government comes in, cuts down the forest, and replaces it with a monoculture..
Our current capitalist economy is much more socially corrosive in that regard than the government could ever dream of being.
The ubiquitous strip mall is merely one superficial example.
Like I said, government comes in, cuts down the forest, and replaces it with a monoculture..
Our current capitalist economy is much more socially corrosive in that regard than the government could ever dream of being.
The ubiquitous strip mall is merely one superficial example.
Like I said, government comes in, cuts down the forest, and replaces it with a monoculture..
Our current capitalist economy is much more socially corrosive in that regard than the government could ever dream of being.
The ubiquitous strip mall is merely one superficial example.
Where was the “forest” that provided medical care for the elderly before Medicare? I’m not talking about the elderly with middle or upper class kids to help them. I’m talking about everyone.
What forest provided guaranteed old-age pensions? Please don’t claim that, absent Social Security, WalMart would be providing its employees generous pension benefits.
Where was the “forest” that provided medical care for the elderly before Medicare? I’m not talking about the elderly with middle or upper class kids to help them. I’m talking about everyone.
What forest provided guaranteed old-age pensions? Please don’t claim that, absent Social Security, WalMart would be providing its employees generous pension benefits.
Where was the “forest” that provided medical care for the elderly before Medicare? I’m not talking about the elderly with middle or upper class kids to help them. I’m talking about everyone.
What forest provided guaranteed old-age pensions? Please don’t claim that, absent Social Security, WalMart would be providing its employees generous pension benefits.
I might give, as an example, the fact that radio broadcasters were actually managing the EM spectrum before the government confiscated it. But the decline of fraternal support organizations IS probably the best example.
I might give, as an example, the fact that radio broadcasters were actually managing the EM spectrum before the government confiscated it. But the decline of fraternal support organizations IS probably the best example.
I might give, as an example, the fact that radio broadcasters were actually managing the EM spectrum before the government confiscated it. But the decline of fraternal support organizations IS probably the best example.
Like I said, government comes in, cuts down the forest, and replaces it with a monoculture.
The conclusion I’ve come to is that most analogies are crap.
They lead to believe you understand something, because you (maybe) have some understanding of the analogue.
But you don’t. And, in order to actually acquire some understanding of the thing, you have to go back and unwind what you thought you knew, based on your analogical understanding of it.
Analogies are great for poetry, and allusive prose, but are just a vehicle for bad, fuzzy, confused thinking in any other context.
Are there any places that have very minimal governments, where there is also little or no social or economic distress due purely to volunteer efforts?
I mean, places with populations greater than, say, five hundred people.
Surely, if what you say is true, somewhere, at some time, some group of people will have succeeded in making the happy land of your dreams come true.
If any such place has ever existed, that will be of interest.
If not, you’re talking about unicorns.
Like I said, government comes in, cuts down the forest, and replaces it with a monoculture.
The conclusion I’ve come to is that most analogies are crap.
They lead to believe you understand something, because you (maybe) have some understanding of the analogue.
But you don’t. And, in order to actually acquire some understanding of the thing, you have to go back and unwind what you thought you knew, based on your analogical understanding of it.
Analogies are great for poetry, and allusive prose, but are just a vehicle for bad, fuzzy, confused thinking in any other context.
Are there any places that have very minimal governments, where there is also little or no social or economic distress due purely to volunteer efforts?
I mean, places with populations greater than, say, five hundred people.
Surely, if what you say is true, somewhere, at some time, some group of people will have succeeded in making the happy land of your dreams come true.
If any such place has ever existed, that will be of interest.
If not, you’re talking about unicorns.
Like I said, government comes in, cuts down the forest, and replaces it with a monoculture.
The conclusion I’ve come to is that most analogies are crap.
They lead to believe you understand something, because you (maybe) have some understanding of the analogue.
But you don’t. And, in order to actually acquire some understanding of the thing, you have to go back and unwind what you thought you knew, based on your analogical understanding of it.
Analogies are great for poetry, and allusive prose, but are just a vehicle for bad, fuzzy, confused thinking in any other context.
Are there any places that have very minimal governments, where there is also little or no social or economic distress due purely to volunteer efforts?
I mean, places with populations greater than, say, five hundred people.
Surely, if what you say is true, somewhere, at some time, some group of people will have succeeded in making the happy land of your dreams come true.
If any such place has ever existed, that will be of interest.
If not, you’re talking about unicorns.
I might give, as an example…
You might, but if you were to do so, it would be helpful if you were also to explain WTF you were talking about.
I might give, as an example…
You might, but if you were to do so, it would be helpful if you were also to explain WTF you were talking about.
I might give, as an example…
You might, but if you were to do so, it would be helpful if you were also to explain WTF you were talking about.
surely we all know that just because the ideal Brett-sized government has never been tried doesn’t mean it wouldn’t lead to perfect outcomes. duh.
surely we all know that just because the ideal Brett-sized government has never been tried doesn’t mean it wouldn’t lead to perfect outcomes. duh.
surely we all know that just because the ideal Brett-sized government has never been tried doesn’t mean it wouldn’t lead to perfect outcomes. duh.
Wal Mart’s charity of choice for its hourly employees is Medicaid and the odd bin of donated canned food.
Wal Mart’s charity of choice for its hourly employees is Medicaid and the odd bin of donated canned food.
Wal Mart’s charity of choice for its hourly employees is Medicaid and the odd bin of donated canned food.
Of all things, the EM spectrum, the use of which today as compared to when radio broadcasters self-managed it … I have no words. And fraternal organizations? That’s the best example?
I think the chicken-coop thing made more sense.
Of all things, the EM spectrum, the use of which today as compared to when radio broadcasters self-managed it … I have no words. And fraternal organizations? That’s the best example?
I think the chicken-coop thing made more sense.
Of all things, the EM spectrum, the use of which today as compared to when radio broadcasters self-managed it … I have no words. And fraternal organizations? That’s the best example?
I think the chicken-coop thing made more sense.
“I might give, as an example, the fact that radio broadcasters were actually managing the EM spectrum before the government confiscated it.”
Brett – can you present any reputable evidence for this assertion, or are you simply making it up out of whole cloth? My understanding is the First National Radio Conference held by Commerce Secretary Hoover in 1922 was convened at least in part to address the growing cacophony of competing, frequency-overlapping stations within the broadcast spectrum. Industry professionals willingly participated in this effort (and the subsequent conferences held in 1923, 24 & 25); indeed, it is not too hard to imagine that folks trying to make money off broadcast radio would want some assurance that their broadcasts weren’t getting compromised due to interference from other broadcasters, amateur experimenters or even EMF anarchists.
Tragedy of the commons and all that, don’t you know…
“I might give, as an example, the fact that radio broadcasters were actually managing the EM spectrum before the government confiscated it.”
Brett – can you present any reputable evidence for this assertion, or are you simply making it up out of whole cloth? My understanding is the First National Radio Conference held by Commerce Secretary Hoover in 1922 was convened at least in part to address the growing cacophony of competing, frequency-overlapping stations within the broadcast spectrum. Industry professionals willingly participated in this effort (and the subsequent conferences held in 1923, 24 & 25); indeed, it is not too hard to imagine that folks trying to make money off broadcast radio would want some assurance that their broadcasts weren’t getting compromised due to interference from other broadcasters, amateur experimenters or even EMF anarchists.
Tragedy of the commons and all that, don’t you know…
“I might give, as an example, the fact that radio broadcasters were actually managing the EM spectrum before the government confiscated it.”
Brett – can you present any reputable evidence for this assertion, or are you simply making it up out of whole cloth? My understanding is the First National Radio Conference held by Commerce Secretary Hoover in 1922 was convened at least in part to address the growing cacophony of competing, frequency-overlapping stations within the broadcast spectrum. Industry professionals willingly participated in this effort (and the subsequent conferences held in 1923, 24 & 25); indeed, it is not too hard to imagine that folks trying to make money off broadcast radio would want some assurance that their broadcasts weren’t getting compromised due to interference from other broadcasters, amateur experimenters or even EMF anarchists.
Tragedy of the commons and all that, don’t you know…
But the decline of fraternal support organizations IS probably the best example.
The Odd Fellows are all done because food stamps?
But the decline of fraternal support organizations IS probably the best example.
The Odd Fellows are all done because food stamps?
But the decline of fraternal support organizations IS probably the best example.
The Odd Fellows are all done because food stamps?
That’s the *BEST* example of government crowding out private activity?
That’s the *BEST* example of government crowding out private activity?
That’s the *BEST* example of government crowding out private activity?
I don’t think anybody here is disparaging charitable giving.
I think you and many of the other commenters here are disparaging charitable giving, when the beneficiary of the charitable giving is not one you support. It’s sad.
“the difference in giving is not due to liberalism or conservatism, it’s due to religiosity”
“if you exclude religious charity” (Why would I do that?)
“religious giving (which is definitely not all about helping the homeless and hungry) is a big reason some states look like big charitable givers and others look stingy”
“I’m not sure that religious tithing counts as “charity””
“it takes a lot of tithing to keep church leaders rollin in the dough, and to gold plate the domes and build those sparkly new church buildings. and none of that does a thing to feed hungry people”
“Church giving … it’s not all about giving to the homeless and the hungry”
“none of what I’ve named buys anybody a hamburger”
Etc. I could go on.
And I don’t buy for a minute that you think only giving to the homeless and the hungry counts as charity, even though that is what you directly implied.
I think you would agree that donating money to find a cure for AIDS counts as charity, but it doesn’t buy anybody a hamburger.
I think you would agree that donating money to protect wildlife counts as charity, but it doesn’t buy anybody a hamburger.
I think you would agree that donating money to Planned Parenthood counts as charity, but it doesn’t buy anybody a hamburger.
But you single out religious charities, and yes you disparage them.
Buying somebody a hamburger doesn’t stop being charitable when you are buying it for a priest. And donating money to build a sparkly new Notre Dame in which to worship God does not mean the donation was not a charitable act.
Do even realize what a jerk you sound like when you disparage people’s religious beliefs the way you, and numerous other commenters, have done in this thread?
People who donate to charity, whether they are donating to a charity that helps the hungry and homeless, or a church, or the Elks lodge, are doing the same thing. They are giving up some immediate satisfaction in order to try to build the world they want to live in.
And that’s what it is all about.
I don’t think anybody here is disparaging charitable giving.
I think you and many of the other commenters here are disparaging charitable giving, when the beneficiary of the charitable giving is not one you support. It’s sad.
“the difference in giving is not due to liberalism or conservatism, it’s due to religiosity”
“if you exclude religious charity” (Why would I do that?)
“religious giving (which is definitely not all about helping the homeless and hungry) is a big reason some states look like big charitable givers and others look stingy”
“I’m not sure that religious tithing counts as “charity””
“it takes a lot of tithing to keep church leaders rollin in the dough, and to gold plate the domes and build those sparkly new church buildings. and none of that does a thing to feed hungry people”
“Church giving … it’s not all about giving to the homeless and the hungry”
“none of what I’ve named buys anybody a hamburger”
Etc. I could go on.
And I don’t buy for a minute that you think only giving to the homeless and the hungry counts as charity, even though that is what you directly implied.
I think you would agree that donating money to find a cure for AIDS counts as charity, but it doesn’t buy anybody a hamburger.
I think you would agree that donating money to protect wildlife counts as charity, but it doesn’t buy anybody a hamburger.
I think you would agree that donating money to Planned Parenthood counts as charity, but it doesn’t buy anybody a hamburger.
But you single out religious charities, and yes you disparage them.
Buying somebody a hamburger doesn’t stop being charitable when you are buying it for a priest. And donating money to build a sparkly new Notre Dame in which to worship God does not mean the donation was not a charitable act.
Do even realize what a jerk you sound like when you disparage people’s religious beliefs the way you, and numerous other commenters, have done in this thread?
People who donate to charity, whether they are donating to a charity that helps the hungry and homeless, or a church, or the Elks lodge, are doing the same thing. They are giving up some immediate satisfaction in order to try to build the world they want to live in.
And that’s what it is all about.
I don’t think anybody here is disparaging charitable giving.
I think you and many of the other commenters here are disparaging charitable giving, when the beneficiary of the charitable giving is not one you support. It’s sad.
“the difference in giving is not due to liberalism or conservatism, it’s due to religiosity”
“if you exclude religious charity” (Why would I do that?)
“religious giving (which is definitely not all about helping the homeless and hungry) is a big reason some states look like big charitable givers and others look stingy”
“I’m not sure that religious tithing counts as “charity””
“it takes a lot of tithing to keep church leaders rollin in the dough, and to gold plate the domes and build those sparkly new church buildings. and none of that does a thing to feed hungry people”
“Church giving … it’s not all about giving to the homeless and the hungry”
“none of what I’ve named buys anybody a hamburger”
Etc. I could go on.
And I don’t buy for a minute that you think only giving to the homeless and the hungry counts as charity, even though that is what you directly implied.
I think you would agree that donating money to find a cure for AIDS counts as charity, but it doesn’t buy anybody a hamburger.
I think you would agree that donating money to protect wildlife counts as charity, but it doesn’t buy anybody a hamburger.
I think you would agree that donating money to Planned Parenthood counts as charity, but it doesn’t buy anybody a hamburger.
But you single out religious charities, and yes you disparage them.
Buying somebody a hamburger doesn’t stop being charitable when you are buying it for a priest. And donating money to build a sparkly new Notre Dame in which to worship God does not mean the donation was not a charitable act.
Do even realize what a jerk you sound like when you disparage people’s religious beliefs the way you, and numerous other commenters, have done in this thread?
People who donate to charity, whether they are donating to a charity that helps the hungry and homeless, or a church, or the Elks lodge, are doing the same thing. They are giving up some immediate satisfaction in order to try to build the world they want to live in.
And that’s what it is all about.
I’ll just speak for myself
To make a long story very short, I have no animus whatsoever against religion, god, people of faith, or anything related.
McK way upthread stated that he dislikes having to “credential” comments, and I agree, but for the sake of putting this particular issue to bed, I’ll say that the largest contribution I make, individually and, along with my wife, as a household, is to the church I attend, in money, time, and kind. And it’s not a small amount. And that’s enough said about that.
I think that the things you mention – AIDS cure, protect wildlife, Planned Parenthood – are all great causes, and I encourage anyone so inclined to contribute to them.
I think that donating to churches is great, and I encourage anyone so inclined to contribute to them.
The original post was my thoughts about an interview with Margaret Thatcher. In the interview, she makes the famously quoted statement that there “is no such thing as society”, and then goes on to give an excellent and concise definition of what a society is. And, throughout the rest of the interview, she discusses nothing but the society she lives in, and how it does and does not succeed in addressing various of its problems.
What I took away from that interview was:
Societies are made up of people.
By virtue of participating in the society, those people are connected through bonds of mutual relationship and obligation.
Thatcher seems to dislike the idea of those obligations being fulfilled through public means, specifically through the government.
I find that puzzling, and asked why that should be.
That was what my post was about.
The subsequent thread turned into a discussion of how to help the poor, and whether conservatives or liberals give more money to charity, and whether conservatives were somehow better people than liberals because they were willing to give money to charity to help the poor, while liberals wanted to make rich people do all the heavy lifting through payment of income taxes.
The one and only point I made, and made several times so that my point would hopefully be sufficiently clear, was that *donations to religious organizations does not always equate to direct financial aid to poor people*.
Because they don’t. In most cases, it primarily pays for the operation of the church as an organization.
If you want a church to exist and flourish as an organization, which for instance I do, then that is a perfectly sensible thing to contribute to. But what you are subsidizing, primarily, is the operation of the church, not the tangible needs of people in any of a variety of forms of distress.
Most churches do work to address those needs as part of their ministry, so some of what you donate to the church will end up there.
But not all of it, and typically not even most of it. It’s actually somewhat expensive to simply operate a church, or any similar organization, period.
The reason I bring it up *at all* is because at least part of the difference in the amount of money that conservative folks give under the overall heading of “charitable giving” is donations to religious organizations, because, at least allegedly, conservatives are more likely to participate in organized religion.
So, the claim of conservatives voluntarily giving more for the relief of people in financial difficulty is somewhat offset by the fact that some amount of that giving is actually to churches that they belong to.
NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. It just is not equivalent to money – whether private or public money – that is directed specifically toward relief for people in financial difficulty.
I really and truly do hope that clarifies things, I’m not sure how else to lay it out to make it any clearer.
I’m not picking on religious people. I try to be clear, but it would also help if folks would read carefully, and not assume ill intent.
I’ll just speak for myself
To make a long story very short, I have no animus whatsoever against religion, god, people of faith, or anything related.
McK way upthread stated that he dislikes having to “credential” comments, and I agree, but for the sake of putting this particular issue to bed, I’ll say that the largest contribution I make, individually and, along with my wife, as a household, is to the church I attend, in money, time, and kind. And it’s not a small amount. And that’s enough said about that.
I think that the things you mention – AIDS cure, protect wildlife, Planned Parenthood – are all great causes, and I encourage anyone so inclined to contribute to them.
I think that donating to churches is great, and I encourage anyone so inclined to contribute to them.
The original post was my thoughts about an interview with Margaret Thatcher. In the interview, she makes the famously quoted statement that there “is no such thing as society”, and then goes on to give an excellent and concise definition of what a society is. And, throughout the rest of the interview, she discusses nothing but the society she lives in, and how it does and does not succeed in addressing various of its problems.
What I took away from that interview was:
Societies are made up of people.
By virtue of participating in the society, those people are connected through bonds of mutual relationship and obligation.
Thatcher seems to dislike the idea of those obligations being fulfilled through public means, specifically through the government.
I find that puzzling, and asked why that should be.
That was what my post was about.
The subsequent thread turned into a discussion of how to help the poor, and whether conservatives or liberals give more money to charity, and whether conservatives were somehow better people than liberals because they were willing to give money to charity to help the poor, while liberals wanted to make rich people do all the heavy lifting through payment of income taxes.
The one and only point I made, and made several times so that my point would hopefully be sufficiently clear, was that *donations to religious organizations does not always equate to direct financial aid to poor people*.
Because they don’t. In most cases, it primarily pays for the operation of the church as an organization.
If you want a church to exist and flourish as an organization, which for instance I do, then that is a perfectly sensible thing to contribute to. But what you are subsidizing, primarily, is the operation of the church, not the tangible needs of people in any of a variety of forms of distress.
Most churches do work to address those needs as part of their ministry, so some of what you donate to the church will end up there.
But not all of it, and typically not even most of it. It’s actually somewhat expensive to simply operate a church, or any similar organization, period.
The reason I bring it up *at all* is because at least part of the difference in the amount of money that conservative folks give under the overall heading of “charitable giving” is donations to religious organizations, because, at least allegedly, conservatives are more likely to participate in organized religion.
So, the claim of conservatives voluntarily giving more for the relief of people in financial difficulty is somewhat offset by the fact that some amount of that giving is actually to churches that they belong to.
NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. It just is not equivalent to money – whether private or public money – that is directed specifically toward relief for people in financial difficulty.
I really and truly do hope that clarifies things, I’m not sure how else to lay it out to make it any clearer.
I’m not picking on religious people. I try to be clear, but it would also help if folks would read carefully, and not assume ill intent.
I’ll just speak for myself
To make a long story very short, I have no animus whatsoever against religion, god, people of faith, or anything related.
McK way upthread stated that he dislikes having to “credential” comments, and I agree, but for the sake of putting this particular issue to bed, I’ll say that the largest contribution I make, individually and, along with my wife, as a household, is to the church I attend, in money, time, and kind. And it’s not a small amount. And that’s enough said about that.
I think that the things you mention – AIDS cure, protect wildlife, Planned Parenthood – are all great causes, and I encourage anyone so inclined to contribute to them.
I think that donating to churches is great, and I encourage anyone so inclined to contribute to them.
The original post was my thoughts about an interview with Margaret Thatcher. In the interview, she makes the famously quoted statement that there “is no such thing as society”, and then goes on to give an excellent and concise definition of what a society is. And, throughout the rest of the interview, she discusses nothing but the society she lives in, and how it does and does not succeed in addressing various of its problems.
What I took away from that interview was:
Societies are made up of people.
By virtue of participating in the society, those people are connected through bonds of mutual relationship and obligation.
Thatcher seems to dislike the idea of those obligations being fulfilled through public means, specifically through the government.
I find that puzzling, and asked why that should be.
That was what my post was about.
The subsequent thread turned into a discussion of how to help the poor, and whether conservatives or liberals give more money to charity, and whether conservatives were somehow better people than liberals because they were willing to give money to charity to help the poor, while liberals wanted to make rich people do all the heavy lifting through payment of income taxes.
The one and only point I made, and made several times so that my point would hopefully be sufficiently clear, was that *donations to religious organizations does not always equate to direct financial aid to poor people*.
Because they don’t. In most cases, it primarily pays for the operation of the church as an organization.
If you want a church to exist and flourish as an organization, which for instance I do, then that is a perfectly sensible thing to contribute to. But what you are subsidizing, primarily, is the operation of the church, not the tangible needs of people in any of a variety of forms of distress.
Most churches do work to address those needs as part of their ministry, so some of what you donate to the church will end up there.
But not all of it, and typically not even most of it. It’s actually somewhat expensive to simply operate a church, or any similar organization, period.
The reason I bring it up *at all* is because at least part of the difference in the amount of money that conservative folks give under the overall heading of “charitable giving” is donations to religious organizations, because, at least allegedly, conservatives are more likely to participate in organized religion.
So, the claim of conservatives voluntarily giving more for the relief of people in financial difficulty is somewhat offset by the fact that some amount of that giving is actually to churches that they belong to.
NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT. It just is not equivalent to money – whether private or public money – that is directed specifically toward relief for people in financial difficulty.
I really and truly do hope that clarifies things, I’m not sure how else to lay it out to make it any clearer.
I’m not picking on religious people. I try to be clear, but it would also help if folks would read carefully, and not assume ill intent.
“So, the claim of conservatives voluntarily giving more for the relief of people in financial difficulty is somewhat offset by the fact that some amount of that giving is actually to churches that they belong to.”
Who made that claim? I think the claim was that conservatives donate more to charity, not that conservatives donate more to people in financial difficulty.
And you’re doing exactly what I said you were doing, claiming that donations to religious organizations count less, and can be discounted.
You have your priorities, other people have theirs.
Point of fact, conservatives contribute more to charity than liberals.
“So, the claim of conservatives voluntarily giving more for the relief of people in financial difficulty is somewhat offset by the fact that some amount of that giving is actually to churches that they belong to.”
Who made that claim? I think the claim was that conservatives donate more to charity, not that conservatives donate more to people in financial difficulty.
And you’re doing exactly what I said you were doing, claiming that donations to religious organizations count less, and can be discounted.
You have your priorities, other people have theirs.
Point of fact, conservatives contribute more to charity than liberals.
“So, the claim of conservatives voluntarily giving more for the relief of people in financial difficulty is somewhat offset by the fact that some amount of that giving is actually to churches that they belong to.”
Who made that claim? I think the claim was that conservatives donate more to charity, not that conservatives donate more to people in financial difficulty.
And you’re doing exactly what I said you were doing, claiming that donations to religious organizations count less, and can be discounted.
You have your priorities, other people have theirs.
Point of fact, conservatives contribute more to charity than liberals.
A deity that claims to own the entire Universe does not need any charity from me, just sayin’.
Now, if said deity occupied an appropriately-scaled tax bracket, I might reconsider.
A deity that claims to own the entire Universe does not need any charity from me, just sayin’.
Now, if said deity occupied an appropriately-scaled tax bracket, I might reconsider.
A deity that claims to own the entire Universe does not need any charity from me, just sayin’.
Now, if said deity occupied an appropriately-scaled tax bracket, I might reconsider.
I have to agree with russell on this topic.
Giving to “charity” is a good thing, but it is full of judgments and unknowns.
I listen to public radio, although a lot of times it makes me angry. But I listen to it, and use it, so I give to it. A lot of that money goes to middle-class people who make salaries, and buys nobody a hamburger.
I give to Doctors Without Borders. I don’t keep careful track of their budget, but the end result is good, and they have a good reputation for financial management.
I give money to arts organizations. I like art and poetry and it doesn’t pay for itself.
I sometimes give to local community organizers. Sometimes to local food banks. Sometimes to random friends’ causes when they ask for money.
Panhandlers make me uncomfortable, and I tend not to hand out cash to people, although sometimes I do.
I used to give to a church, but don’t go anymore.
I do a Meals on Wheels run once a week.
None of this is a substitute for things that government can do in a highly organized way to alleviate poverty, provide fair housing, provide the opportunity for medical care, food assistance, educational assistance, etc. Government needs to do the heavy lifting. Charitable giving fills in the cracks.
I have to agree with russell on this topic.
Giving to “charity” is a good thing, but it is full of judgments and unknowns.
I listen to public radio, although a lot of times it makes me angry. But I listen to it, and use it, so I give to it. A lot of that money goes to middle-class people who make salaries, and buys nobody a hamburger.
I give to Doctors Without Borders. I don’t keep careful track of their budget, but the end result is good, and they have a good reputation for financial management.
I give money to arts organizations. I like art and poetry and it doesn’t pay for itself.
I sometimes give to local community organizers. Sometimes to local food banks. Sometimes to random friends’ causes when they ask for money.
Panhandlers make me uncomfortable, and I tend not to hand out cash to people, although sometimes I do.
I used to give to a church, but don’t go anymore.
I do a Meals on Wheels run once a week.
None of this is a substitute for things that government can do in a highly organized way to alleviate poverty, provide fair housing, provide the opportunity for medical care, food assistance, educational assistance, etc. Government needs to do the heavy lifting. Charitable giving fills in the cracks.
I have to agree with russell on this topic.
Giving to “charity” is a good thing, but it is full of judgments and unknowns.
I listen to public radio, although a lot of times it makes me angry. But I listen to it, and use it, so I give to it. A lot of that money goes to middle-class people who make salaries, and buys nobody a hamburger.
I give to Doctors Without Borders. I don’t keep careful track of their budget, but the end result is good, and they have a good reputation for financial management.
I give money to arts organizations. I like art and poetry and it doesn’t pay for itself.
I sometimes give to local community organizers. Sometimes to local food banks. Sometimes to random friends’ causes when they ask for money.
Panhandlers make me uncomfortable, and I tend not to hand out cash to people, although sometimes I do.
I used to give to a church, but don’t go anymore.
I do a Meals on Wheels run once a week.
None of this is a substitute for things that government can do in a highly organized way to alleviate poverty, provide fair housing, provide the opportunity for medical care, food assistance, educational assistance, etc. Government needs to do the heavy lifting. Charitable giving fills in the cracks.
The fact that Conservatives give money to their churches does not make them better people than liberals who may or may not even go to church.
and what Snarki said.
The fact that Conservatives give money to their churches does not make them better people than liberals who may or may not even go to church.
and what Snarki said.
The fact that Conservatives give money to their churches does not make them better people than liberals who may or may not even go to church.
and what Snarki said.
Who made that claim?
Brett Bellmore, 3/26/15 6:16 AM
And you’re doing exactly what I said you were doing, claiming that donations to religious organizations count less, and can be discounted.
Yes, I am doing exactly that, for exactly the reasons I mentioned, at length.
I’m done with trying to explain myself any more clearly, take whatever you like away from the conversation.
Best of luck to you.
Point of fact, conservatives contribute more to charity than liberals.
Yes, and they never ever ever tire of patting themselves on the back about it, either.
Let not your left hand know what your right hand is doing, I was taught, but so be it.
A deity that claims to own the entire Universe does not need any charity from me, just sayin’.
True dat.
Who made that claim?
Brett Bellmore, 3/26/15 6:16 AM
And you’re doing exactly what I said you were doing, claiming that donations to religious organizations count less, and can be discounted.
Yes, I am doing exactly that, for exactly the reasons I mentioned, at length.
I’m done with trying to explain myself any more clearly, take whatever you like away from the conversation.
Best of luck to you.
Point of fact, conservatives contribute more to charity than liberals.
Yes, and they never ever ever tire of patting themselves on the back about it, either.
Let not your left hand know what your right hand is doing, I was taught, but so be it.
A deity that claims to own the entire Universe does not need any charity from me, just sayin’.
True dat.
Who made that claim?
Brett Bellmore, 3/26/15 6:16 AM
And you’re doing exactly what I said you were doing, claiming that donations to religious organizations count less, and can be discounted.
Yes, I am doing exactly that, for exactly the reasons I mentioned, at length.
I’m done with trying to explain myself any more clearly, take whatever you like away from the conversation.
Best of luck to you.
Point of fact, conservatives contribute more to charity than liberals.
Yes, and they never ever ever tire of patting themselves on the back about it, either.
Let not your left hand know what your right hand is doing, I was taught, but so be it.
A deity that claims to own the entire Universe does not need any charity from me, just sayin’.
True dat.
Yes, and they never ever ever tire of patting themselves on the back about it, either.
Pointing out facts that make you uncomfortable is not patting one’s self on the back.
Conservatives donate more to charity than liberals.
Liberals don’t care for some of the causes that conservatives contribute to, seemingly without comprehending that conservatives don’t care for some of the causes that liberals contribute to.
At the end of the week when you get the paycheck, you get to make the choice, do I spend it on myself or do I spend it trying to make the world a better place. Conservatives are more likely to make the latter choice, liberals the former.
Yes, and they never ever ever tire of patting themselves on the back about it, either.
Pointing out facts that make you uncomfortable is not patting one’s self on the back.
Conservatives donate more to charity than liberals.
Liberals don’t care for some of the causes that conservatives contribute to, seemingly without comprehending that conservatives don’t care for some of the causes that liberals contribute to.
At the end of the week when you get the paycheck, you get to make the choice, do I spend it on myself or do I spend it trying to make the world a better place. Conservatives are more likely to make the latter choice, liberals the former.
Yes, and they never ever ever tire of patting themselves on the back about it, either.
Pointing out facts that make you uncomfortable is not patting one’s self on the back.
Conservatives donate more to charity than liberals.
Liberals don’t care for some of the causes that conservatives contribute to, seemingly without comprehending that conservatives don’t care for some of the causes that liberals contribute to.
At the end of the week when you get the paycheck, you get to make the choice, do I spend it on myself or do I spend it trying to make the world a better place. Conservatives are more likely to make the latter choice, liberals the former.
Brett isn’t a troll. D Clarity is.
Brett isn’t a troll. D Clarity is.
Brett isn’t a troll. D Clarity is.
A troll, to a liberal, is someone who wins arguments with them.
A troll, to a liberal, is someone who wins arguments with them.
A troll, to a liberal, is someone who wins arguments with them.
No food for you.
No food for you.
No food for you.
You’re doing a particularly great job at ignoring me.
But no, not a troll.
I believe that donations to religious organizations count just as much as donations to non-religious organizations, and I think that the animosity towards religious organizations, and towards people who donate to them, in this thread is distasteful.
And even this, you calling me a troll because you disagree with me, it’s ridiculous. What have I said that you honestly think I don’t believe?
You’re doing a particularly great job at ignoring me.
But no, not a troll.
I believe that donations to religious organizations count just as much as donations to non-religious organizations, and I think that the animosity towards religious organizations, and towards people who donate to them, in this thread is distasteful.
And even this, you calling me a troll because you disagree with me, it’s ridiculous. What have I said that you honestly think I don’t believe?
You’re doing a particularly great job at ignoring me.
But no, not a troll.
I believe that donations to religious organizations count just as much as donations to non-religious organizations, and I think that the animosity towards religious organizations, and towards people who donate to them, in this thread is distasteful.
And even this, you calling me a troll because you disagree with me, it’s ridiculous. What have I said that you honestly think I don’t believe?
Are donations to universities charitable giving? Art museums? Should they count when we are discussing how society helps out those in need?
This link may also be apropos
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/
Are donations to universities charitable giving? Art museums? Should they count when we are discussing how society helps out those in need?
This link may also be apropos
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/
Are donations to universities charitable giving? Art museums? Should they count when we are discussing how society helps out those in need?
This link may also be apropos
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/04/why-the-rich-dont-give/309254/
The forest analogy reminds me of another wise man’s words:
“As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.
In the garden, growth has its seasons. First comes Spring and Summer. But then we have Fall and Winter. And we get Spring and Summer again.”
Chauncey Gardiner, Being There. Advising the President and his staff, who are agog with the simple profundity of these words and their possibilities for public policy.
Gardiner, known as Chance, walks on water at the end of the movie.
Now, let’s cast our thoughts back to the forest fires that raged through the western United States during the 1990s leading up to a national election (I maintain that some of these forest fires were set by conservative cadres to enhance the terrible optics for the Clinton Administration and the environmental movement). You’ll recall that the fire in Yellowstone was the most controversial.
At that time conservatives argued that the diversity of forests and leaving their natural, untended growth intact, uninterrupted by the clear cutting and monoculture practices of the lumber companies was in fact to blame for the fires, while government forest managers, labeled liberals, argued for flourishing forest diversity and that fire was part of the natural cycle of that diversity.
Analogies can be analogous to whatever pleases us.
So, if society, public policy, and people are forests and trees, according to conservative thinking in 1990s, then following Brett’s forest management practices with regard to public policy could lead to the periodic immolation of society and people, sort of a natural, but disastrous culling and pruning.
Conversely, like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, the platitudinous Chance’s of their time, scything down the underbrush on their ranches, nipping the underbrush (the poor, the needy, the uninsured, the un-pensioned) in the bud and piling it up and burning it periodically will maintain the desired monoculture, while the government’s policies of natural forest diversity, which crowds out the natural charitable impulses of Georgia Pacific, could lead to conflagration.
Analogy, the continuously spinning Möbius strip perspective.
The forest analogy reminds me of another wise man’s words:
“As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.
In the garden, growth has its seasons. First comes Spring and Summer. But then we have Fall and Winter. And we get Spring and Summer again.”
Chauncey Gardiner, Being There. Advising the President and his staff, who are agog with the simple profundity of these words and their possibilities for public policy.
Gardiner, known as Chance, walks on water at the end of the movie.
Now, let’s cast our thoughts back to the forest fires that raged through the western United States during the 1990s leading up to a national election (I maintain that some of these forest fires were set by conservative cadres to enhance the terrible optics for the Clinton Administration and the environmental movement). You’ll recall that the fire in Yellowstone was the most controversial.
At that time conservatives argued that the diversity of forests and leaving their natural, untended growth intact, uninterrupted by the clear cutting and monoculture practices of the lumber companies was in fact to blame for the fires, while government forest managers, labeled liberals, argued for flourishing forest diversity and that fire was part of the natural cycle of that diversity.
Analogies can be analogous to whatever pleases us.
So, if society, public policy, and people are forests and trees, according to conservative thinking in 1990s, then following Brett’s forest management practices with regard to public policy could lead to the periodic immolation of society and people, sort of a natural, but disastrous culling and pruning.
Conversely, like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, the platitudinous Chance’s of their time, scything down the underbrush on their ranches, nipping the underbrush (the poor, the needy, the uninsured, the un-pensioned) in the bud and piling it up and burning it periodically will maintain the desired monoculture, while the government’s policies of natural forest diversity, which crowds out the natural charitable impulses of Georgia Pacific, could lead to conflagration.
Analogy, the continuously spinning Möbius strip perspective.
The forest analogy reminds me of another wise man’s words:
“As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.
In the garden, growth has its seasons. First comes Spring and Summer. But then we have Fall and Winter. And we get Spring and Summer again.”
Chauncey Gardiner, Being There. Advising the President and his staff, who are agog with the simple profundity of these words and their possibilities for public policy.
Gardiner, known as Chance, walks on water at the end of the movie.
Now, let’s cast our thoughts back to the forest fires that raged through the western United States during the 1990s leading up to a national election (I maintain that some of these forest fires were set by conservative cadres to enhance the terrible optics for the Clinton Administration and the environmental movement). You’ll recall that the fire in Yellowstone was the most controversial.
At that time conservatives argued that the diversity of forests and leaving their natural, untended growth intact, uninterrupted by the clear cutting and monoculture practices of the lumber companies was in fact to blame for the fires, while government forest managers, labeled liberals, argued for flourishing forest diversity and that fire was part of the natural cycle of that diversity.
Analogies can be analogous to whatever pleases us.
So, if society, public policy, and people are forests and trees, according to conservative thinking in 1990s, then following Brett’s forest management practices with regard to public policy could lead to the periodic immolation of society and people, sort of a natural, but disastrous culling and pruning.
Conversely, like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, the platitudinous Chance’s of their time, scything down the underbrush on their ranches, nipping the underbrush (the poor, the needy, the uninsured, the un-pensioned) in the bud and piling it up and burning it periodically will maintain the desired monoculture, while the government’s policies of natural forest diversity, which crowds out the natural charitable impulses of Georgia Pacific, could lead to conflagration.
Analogy, the continuously spinning Möbius strip perspective.
Pointing out facts that make you uncomfortable is not patting one’s self on the back.
No, but pointing out the facts as a means of demonstrating your moral superiority is.
You seem to be intent on misreading my point with a fanatic obsessiveness that I doubt I could make a dent in were I to write the same damned comment another 1,000 times.
So, over and out. No food for you.
If you really want to continue the debate, just copy and paste my last, like, five comments on the topic and reply to them. It’ll amount to the same thing.
Government needs to do the heavy lifting. Charitable giving fills in the cracks.
I would even say that both are capable of heavy lifting, but that they are best suited for *different things*.
Charities tend to be relatively narrowly focused. That is not a criticism, in any way, it’s just an observation. They tend to come into being to address a particular cause or purpose, and tend to be focused on that cause or purpose.
They aren’t, however, well positioned to address larger scale structural or systemic issues. Government is.
Different strokes.
I have zero animus toward charitable giving, of any type or form or amount. What I fail to understand, and would like somebody to explain is the conservative animus toward *government* engagement in addressing social and economic issues (or whatever kind of issue you like).
Somebody other than Brett, that is, because Brett’s objections tend to amount to COERCION! PROTECTION RACKET! Yes, we all know that you will be in legal trouble if you don’t pay your taxes, thanks for pointing that out, no need to bring it our attention again.
Pointing out facts that make you uncomfortable is not patting one’s self on the back.
No, but pointing out the facts as a means of demonstrating your moral superiority is.
You seem to be intent on misreading my point with a fanatic obsessiveness that I doubt I could make a dent in were I to write the same damned comment another 1,000 times.
So, over and out. No food for you.
If you really want to continue the debate, just copy and paste my last, like, five comments on the topic and reply to them. It’ll amount to the same thing.
Government needs to do the heavy lifting. Charitable giving fills in the cracks.
I would even say that both are capable of heavy lifting, but that they are best suited for *different things*.
Charities tend to be relatively narrowly focused. That is not a criticism, in any way, it’s just an observation. They tend to come into being to address a particular cause or purpose, and tend to be focused on that cause or purpose.
They aren’t, however, well positioned to address larger scale structural or systemic issues. Government is.
Different strokes.
I have zero animus toward charitable giving, of any type or form or amount. What I fail to understand, and would like somebody to explain is the conservative animus toward *government* engagement in addressing social and economic issues (or whatever kind of issue you like).
Somebody other than Brett, that is, because Brett’s objections tend to amount to COERCION! PROTECTION RACKET! Yes, we all know that you will be in legal trouble if you don’t pay your taxes, thanks for pointing that out, no need to bring it our attention again.
Pointing out facts that make you uncomfortable is not patting one’s self on the back.
No, but pointing out the facts as a means of demonstrating your moral superiority is.
You seem to be intent on misreading my point with a fanatic obsessiveness that I doubt I could make a dent in were I to write the same damned comment another 1,000 times.
So, over and out. No food for you.
If you really want to continue the debate, just copy and paste my last, like, five comments on the topic and reply to them. It’ll amount to the same thing.
Government needs to do the heavy lifting. Charitable giving fills in the cracks.
I would even say that both are capable of heavy lifting, but that they are best suited for *different things*.
Charities tend to be relatively narrowly focused. That is not a criticism, in any way, it’s just an observation. They tend to come into being to address a particular cause or purpose, and tend to be focused on that cause or purpose.
They aren’t, however, well positioned to address larger scale structural or systemic issues. Government is.
Different strokes.
I have zero animus toward charitable giving, of any type or form or amount. What I fail to understand, and would like somebody to explain is the conservative animus toward *government* engagement in addressing social and economic issues (or whatever kind of issue you like).
Somebody other than Brett, that is, because Brett’s objections tend to amount to COERCION! PROTECTION RACKET! Yes, we all know that you will be in legal trouble if you don’t pay your taxes, thanks for pointing that out, no need to bring it our attention again.
I might suggest that the objection to government comes down to the fact that it is government doing it. Which, in turn, grows from a perception that many (most?) of the things that government does are things that they don’t want done in the first place — which taints everything else government does by association.
I would say that part (only part, but definitely a part) of that latter is a reluctance/failure to acknowledge the fact there are things that the goverment does which they do want done. That’s why someone would hold up a sign saying “Government Hands Off My Medicare!” It’s just so much simpler if the things you like aren’t really done by the government; that way you don’t have to deal with all that nuance stuff.
I might suggest that the objection to government comes down to the fact that it is government doing it. Which, in turn, grows from a perception that many (most?) of the things that government does are things that they don’t want done in the first place — which taints everything else government does by association.
I would say that part (only part, but definitely a part) of that latter is a reluctance/failure to acknowledge the fact there are things that the goverment does which they do want done. That’s why someone would hold up a sign saying “Government Hands Off My Medicare!” It’s just so much simpler if the things you like aren’t really done by the government; that way you don’t have to deal with all that nuance stuff.
I might suggest that the objection to government comes down to the fact that it is government doing it. Which, in turn, grows from a perception that many (most?) of the things that government does are things that they don’t want done in the first place — which taints everything else government does by association.
I would say that part (only part, but definitely a part) of that latter is a reluctance/failure to acknowledge the fact there are things that the goverment does which they do want done. That’s why someone would hold up a sign saying “Government Hands Off My Medicare!” It’s just so much simpler if the things you like aren’t really done by the government; that way you don’t have to deal with all that nuance stuff.
Low wage workers with slight or no benefits the world over engage in charitable, volunteer labor —- think of the workers made to work overtime with no extra pay or cheated of their wages by management intent on keeping overhead low —– on behalf of consumers and shareholders.
When a conservative ideologue says of the unemployed that their benefits should be cut and they’ll take whatever work there is and damned well like it, the conservative ideologue is little more than a panhandler with change cup extended. Give me your labor regardless of compensation.
Really, the arguments against raising the minimum wage amount to little more than employers expecting their employees to be charity workers.
In farct, the purposeful stagnation of wages in recent decades, even for the middle class, amounts to forced charity on the lower classes with the high wage earners and shareholders as the beneficiaries and recipients.
I consider the pop in price of my equity shares after a company announces
a layoff or another “strategic” move to be a charitable contribution to me, which is my favorite charity.
Robots and artificial intelligence are de facto perverse charities because they save the wealthy money otherwise spent on wages and benefits.
I have absolutely nothing against wealth or its accumulation, but consider some of its sources and its rationalizations.
Low wage workers with slight or no benefits the world over engage in charitable, volunteer labor —- think of the workers made to work overtime with no extra pay or cheated of their wages by management intent on keeping overhead low —– on behalf of consumers and shareholders.
When a conservative ideologue says of the unemployed that their benefits should be cut and they’ll take whatever work there is and damned well like it, the conservative ideologue is little more than a panhandler with change cup extended. Give me your labor regardless of compensation.
Really, the arguments against raising the minimum wage amount to little more than employers expecting their employees to be charity workers.
In farct, the purposeful stagnation of wages in recent decades, even for the middle class, amounts to forced charity on the lower classes with the high wage earners and shareholders as the beneficiaries and recipients.
I consider the pop in price of my equity shares after a company announces
a layoff or another “strategic” move to be a charitable contribution to me, which is my favorite charity.
Robots and artificial intelligence are de facto perverse charities because they save the wealthy money otherwise spent on wages and benefits.
I have absolutely nothing against wealth or its accumulation, but consider some of its sources and its rationalizations.
Low wage workers with slight or no benefits the world over engage in charitable, volunteer labor —- think of the workers made to work overtime with no extra pay or cheated of their wages by management intent on keeping overhead low —– on behalf of consumers and shareholders.
When a conservative ideologue says of the unemployed that their benefits should be cut and they’ll take whatever work there is and damned well like it, the conservative ideologue is little more than a panhandler with change cup extended. Give me your labor regardless of compensation.
Really, the arguments against raising the minimum wage amount to little more than employers expecting their employees to be charity workers.
In farct, the purposeful stagnation of wages in recent decades, even for the middle class, amounts to forced charity on the lower classes with the high wage earners and shareholders as the beneficiaries and recipients.
I consider the pop in price of my equity shares after a company announces
a layoff or another “strategic” move to be a charitable contribution to me, which is my favorite charity.
Robots and artificial intelligence are de facto perverse charities because they save the wealthy money otherwise spent on wages and benefits.
I have absolutely nothing against wealth or its accumulation, but consider some of its sources and its rationalizations.
Low wage piece work illegal and legal immigrant crop pickers are charity volunteers for food consumers.
Brett’s draconan immigration reform will crowd out their charitble impulses via one size fits all government monoculture.
This analogy game makes me feel like I can walk on water.
Low wage piece work illegal and legal immigrant crop pickers are charity volunteers for food consumers.
Brett’s draconan immigration reform will crowd out their charitble impulses via one size fits all government monoculture.
This analogy game makes me feel like I can walk on water.
Low wage piece work illegal and legal immigrant crop pickers are charity volunteers for food consumers.
Brett’s draconan immigration reform will crowd out their charitble impulses via one size fits all government monoculture.
This analogy game makes me feel like I can walk on water.
and again, the difference between conservative giving and liberal giving is church attendance.
conservatives give far more money to religious organizations than liberals – and less than 1/4 of church donations actually go to social welfare. but liberals give more to secular charities.
and there’s a link to a very long paper there, with all kinds of wonderful statistics.
and again, the difference between conservative giving and liberal giving is church attendance.
conservatives give far more money to religious organizations than liberals – and less than 1/4 of church donations actually go to social welfare. but liberals give more to secular charities.
and there’s a link to a very long paper there, with all kinds of wonderful statistics.
and again, the difference between conservative giving and liberal giving is church attendance.
conservatives give far more money to religious organizations than liberals – and less than 1/4 of church donations actually go to social welfare. but liberals give more to secular charities.
and there’s a link to a very long paper there, with all kinds of wonderful statistics.
I tend to think of giving to your own church (which…I think is what church giving typically is, right? People aren’t going around donating to churches they’re not affiliated with?) as similar to donating to a public radio station that you personally listen to or participating in a fundraiser for the school you work at or attend. Yes, it’s giving. But it’s not really giving *to others* as the primary driving force. You’re giving because you personally are involved/benefitting/participating. And sure, it’s partly to allow that organization to continue and benefit others–it’s certainly not a selfish act–but you wouldn’t be doing it if you weren’t personally involved in the organization and therefore one of the beneficiaries.
Contrast this to giving to, for example, a food bank or a homeless shelter. Most people who do that (myself included) have probably never had to partake of those services and don’t expect to have to (though one never knows, I suppose). So that giving is explicitly *for others* exclusively.
All of this is to say that I do think it’s fair to distinguish between different types of giving and that they’re not all necessarily equally charitable in the sense of giving of yourself to help others. I’m not even trying to rank in terms of good, better, best. It’s just *different*.
But it means I’m not sure it’s fair to say that Alice, who gave 100 dollars to her own church, is five times as charitable as Bob, who brought 20 dollars worth of canned goods to his local food bank. Alice just helped bolster her own church. Bob helped some strangers provide food for themselves and their families. Who did more benefit *to others*?
And incidentally, I’m not sure it’s fair to say Alice is *less* charitable than Bob either. I just don’t think the dollar value is a good indicator.
I tend to think of giving to your own church (which…I think is what church giving typically is, right? People aren’t going around donating to churches they’re not affiliated with?) as similar to donating to a public radio station that you personally listen to or participating in a fundraiser for the school you work at or attend. Yes, it’s giving. But it’s not really giving *to others* as the primary driving force. You’re giving because you personally are involved/benefitting/participating. And sure, it’s partly to allow that organization to continue and benefit others–it’s certainly not a selfish act–but you wouldn’t be doing it if you weren’t personally involved in the organization and therefore one of the beneficiaries.
Contrast this to giving to, for example, a food bank or a homeless shelter. Most people who do that (myself included) have probably never had to partake of those services and don’t expect to have to (though one never knows, I suppose). So that giving is explicitly *for others* exclusively.
All of this is to say that I do think it’s fair to distinguish between different types of giving and that they’re not all necessarily equally charitable in the sense of giving of yourself to help others. I’m not even trying to rank in terms of good, better, best. It’s just *different*.
But it means I’m not sure it’s fair to say that Alice, who gave 100 dollars to her own church, is five times as charitable as Bob, who brought 20 dollars worth of canned goods to his local food bank. Alice just helped bolster her own church. Bob helped some strangers provide food for themselves and their families. Who did more benefit *to others*?
And incidentally, I’m not sure it’s fair to say Alice is *less* charitable than Bob either. I just don’t think the dollar value is a good indicator.
I tend to think of giving to your own church (which…I think is what church giving typically is, right? People aren’t going around donating to churches they’re not affiliated with?) as similar to donating to a public radio station that you personally listen to or participating in a fundraiser for the school you work at or attend. Yes, it’s giving. But it’s not really giving *to others* as the primary driving force. You’re giving because you personally are involved/benefitting/participating. And sure, it’s partly to allow that organization to continue and benefit others–it’s certainly not a selfish act–but you wouldn’t be doing it if you weren’t personally involved in the organization and therefore one of the beneficiaries.
Contrast this to giving to, for example, a food bank or a homeless shelter. Most people who do that (myself included) have probably never had to partake of those services and don’t expect to have to (though one never knows, I suppose). So that giving is explicitly *for others* exclusively.
All of this is to say that I do think it’s fair to distinguish between different types of giving and that they’re not all necessarily equally charitable in the sense of giving of yourself to help others. I’m not even trying to rank in terms of good, better, best. It’s just *different*.
But it means I’m not sure it’s fair to say that Alice, who gave 100 dollars to her own church, is five times as charitable as Bob, who brought 20 dollars worth of canned goods to his local food bank. Alice just helped bolster her own church. Bob helped some strangers provide food for themselves and their families. Who did more benefit *to others*?
And incidentally, I’m not sure it’s fair to say Alice is *less* charitable than Bob either. I just don’t think the dollar value is a good indicator.
Pat Robertson, among others, has perfected charity to such an extent via his pledge hotline that he bequeathed himself several gold mines in Africa purchased by the charitable contributions of those gullible ones who are much less fortunate than Robertson and his lieutenants, but thinking your back pain has been eradicated over the phone tends to turn the money spigot on.
I’ve nothing against the charitable impulse, religious or secular, but could TD Jakes and the Vatican be a little more subtle with the bling.
Pat Robertson, among others, has perfected charity to such an extent via his pledge hotline that he bequeathed himself several gold mines in Africa purchased by the charitable contributions of those gullible ones who are much less fortunate than Robertson and his lieutenants, but thinking your back pain has been eradicated over the phone tends to turn the money spigot on.
I’ve nothing against the charitable impulse, religious or secular, but could TD Jakes and the Vatican be a little more subtle with the bling.
Pat Robertson, among others, has perfected charity to such an extent via his pledge hotline that he bequeathed himself several gold mines in Africa purchased by the charitable contributions of those gullible ones who are much less fortunate than Robertson and his lieutenants, but thinking your back pain has been eradicated over the phone tends to turn the money spigot on.
I’ve nothing against the charitable impulse, religious or secular, but could TD Jakes and the Vatican be a little more subtle with the bling.
Who is more charitable, the big-haired televangelist who siphons other people’s money into his or her questionable charitable and business enterprises, or the patron at the local bar who over-tips the bartenders who have to rely on Medicaid for their kids dental checkups?
Who is more charitable, the big-haired televangelist who siphons other people’s money into his or her questionable charitable and business enterprises, or the patron at the local bar who over-tips the bartenders who have to rely on Medicaid for their kids dental checkups?
Who is more charitable, the big-haired televangelist who siphons other people’s money into his or her questionable charitable and business enterprises, or the patron at the local bar who over-tips the bartenders who have to rely on Medicaid for their kids dental checkups?
… conservatives contribute more to charity than liberals.
So, how about libertarians??
There are plenty of self-proclaimed libertarians who are hard to tell apart from conservatives by measures like policy preferences, voting habits, or degree of contempt for liberals. Are charitable giving patterns a way to tell the libertarians apart from the conservatives?
–TP
… conservatives contribute more to charity than liberals.
So, how about libertarians??
There are plenty of self-proclaimed libertarians who are hard to tell apart from conservatives by measures like policy preferences, voting habits, or degree of contempt for liberals. Are charitable giving patterns a way to tell the libertarians apart from the conservatives?
–TP
… conservatives contribute more to charity than liberals.
So, how about libertarians??
There are plenty of self-proclaimed libertarians who are hard to tell apart from conservatives by measures like policy preferences, voting habits, or degree of contempt for liberals. Are charitable giving patterns a way to tell the libertarians apart from the conservatives?
–TP
The success of the rightwing is based on redefining words. We know from polling, for example, that most people in the USA agree with liberal principles and ideas, so a politician can either agree with those or do as conservatives have done, which is to redefine the words to pretend they mean something else. Thatcher was smart and she was good at this.
The success of the rightwing is based on redefining words. We know from polling, for example, that most people in the USA agree with liberal principles and ideas, so a politician can either agree with those or do as conservatives have done, which is to redefine the words to pretend they mean something else. Thatcher was smart and she was good at this.
The success of the rightwing is based on redefining words. We know from polling, for example, that most people in the USA agree with liberal principles and ideas, so a politician can either agree with those or do as conservatives have done, which is to redefine the words to pretend they mean something else. Thatcher was smart and she was good at this.
I have it on insider knowledge that your average draft beer which runs for $6.00 per 12-ounce glass retail actually costs the bar owner $0.88 cents wholesale.
That’s why the bar owner is called a businessman and your average barfly is the Mother Teresa of charitable enterprises.
Then, in most places, the patron is expected to chip in extra so the bartenders can afford to eat too.
Happy hour muddies the waters a bit, but on the other hand, seems to stimulate religiously inspired giving, judging from the exclamations of “Jesus, what a deal!” from thirsty patrons.
Regarding the food banks and Libertarians, the latter tend to give generously of their surplus cans of garbanzo beans, mushy peas, and Spam, but they demand the banks give them Hungry Man Dinners, gourmet pigs in a blanket, and heritage vegetables in exchange just to keep everyone honest and to make sure no one is getting away with any of this funny free lunch business.
There used to an alleged homeless guy on street corners in my city who would wave in good cheer to passing cars. His sign said ” I could really use a drink. So could my kids.” and from all accounts he did a landsale business, charitable givers admiring the honesty of it all.
That’s true.
Unfortunately, some do-gooder liberals ruined it all when they opened a free Liquor Bank which dispensed all manner of aperitifs and now rush hour drivers are left with leg less, jobless veterans whose signs say “anything will help” and “God bless”, which is obvious undeserving claptrap.
That’s not true.
I have it on insider knowledge that your average draft beer which runs for $6.00 per 12-ounce glass retail actually costs the bar owner $0.88 cents wholesale.
That’s why the bar owner is called a businessman and your average barfly is the Mother Teresa of charitable enterprises.
Then, in most places, the patron is expected to chip in extra so the bartenders can afford to eat too.
Happy hour muddies the waters a bit, but on the other hand, seems to stimulate religiously inspired giving, judging from the exclamations of “Jesus, what a deal!” from thirsty patrons.
Regarding the food banks and Libertarians, the latter tend to give generously of their surplus cans of garbanzo beans, mushy peas, and Spam, but they demand the banks give them Hungry Man Dinners, gourmet pigs in a blanket, and heritage vegetables in exchange just to keep everyone honest and to make sure no one is getting away with any of this funny free lunch business.
There used to an alleged homeless guy on street corners in my city who would wave in good cheer to passing cars. His sign said ” I could really use a drink. So could my kids.” and from all accounts he did a landsale business, charitable givers admiring the honesty of it all.
That’s true.
Unfortunately, some do-gooder liberals ruined it all when they opened a free Liquor Bank which dispensed all manner of aperitifs and now rush hour drivers are left with leg less, jobless veterans whose signs say “anything will help” and “God bless”, which is obvious undeserving claptrap.
That’s not true.
I have it on insider knowledge that your average draft beer which runs for $6.00 per 12-ounce glass retail actually costs the bar owner $0.88 cents wholesale.
That’s why the bar owner is called a businessman and your average barfly is the Mother Teresa of charitable enterprises.
Then, in most places, the patron is expected to chip in extra so the bartenders can afford to eat too.
Happy hour muddies the waters a bit, but on the other hand, seems to stimulate religiously inspired giving, judging from the exclamations of “Jesus, what a deal!” from thirsty patrons.
Regarding the food banks and Libertarians, the latter tend to give generously of their surplus cans of garbanzo beans, mushy peas, and Spam, but they demand the banks give them Hungry Man Dinners, gourmet pigs in a blanket, and heritage vegetables in exchange just to keep everyone honest and to make sure no one is getting away with any of this funny free lunch business.
There used to an alleged homeless guy on street corners in my city who would wave in good cheer to passing cars. His sign said ” I could really use a drink. So could my kids.” and from all accounts he did a landsale business, charitable givers admiring the honesty of it all.
That’s true.
Unfortunately, some do-gooder liberals ruined it all when they opened a free Liquor Bank which dispensed all manner of aperitifs and now rush hour drivers are left with leg less, jobless veterans whose signs say “anything will help” and “God bless”, which is obvious undeserving claptrap.
That’s not true.
People aren’t going around donating to churches they’re not affiliated with?
If people from the neighbourhood church came to my door asking for donations to build a new church, I would give. Would that be charity? Or would it stop being charity if I joined their church? It would be less charitable than if I gave money to the people coming by next asking for money to build a homeless shelter?
Bob, who brought 20 dollars worth of canned goods to his local food bank.
And why would Bob be donating to his local food bank, rather than to strangers in some country he has never heard of?
Because exactly like Alice, he wants to see the results of his giving in his own community. They are both trying to change the world in ways that benefit them.
So, how about libertarians??
Who cares? They don’t care about anyone else so why care about them?
People aren’t going around donating to churches they’re not affiliated with?
If people from the neighbourhood church came to my door asking for donations to build a new church, I would give. Would that be charity? Or would it stop being charity if I joined their church? It would be less charitable than if I gave money to the people coming by next asking for money to build a homeless shelter?
Bob, who brought 20 dollars worth of canned goods to his local food bank.
And why would Bob be donating to his local food bank, rather than to strangers in some country he has never heard of?
Because exactly like Alice, he wants to see the results of his giving in his own community. They are both trying to change the world in ways that benefit them.
So, how about libertarians??
Who cares? They don’t care about anyone else so why care about them?
People aren’t going around donating to churches they’re not affiliated with?
If people from the neighbourhood church came to my door asking for donations to build a new church, I would give. Would that be charity? Or would it stop being charity if I joined their church? It would be less charitable than if I gave money to the people coming by next asking for money to build a homeless shelter?
Bob, who brought 20 dollars worth of canned goods to his local food bank.
And why would Bob be donating to his local food bank, rather than to strangers in some country he has never heard of?
Because exactly like Alice, he wants to see the results of his giving in his own community. They are both trying to change the world in ways that benefit them.
So, how about libertarians??
Who cares? They don’t care about anyone else so why care about them?
Because exactly like Alice, he wants to see the results of his giving in his own community. They are both trying to change the world in ways that benefit them.
I agree. But are you claiming that actually Alice *is* five times as charitable as Bob? Is Alice doing five times as much good? Is Alice helping five times as much? If I changed it to Bob sending $20 worth of books, pens, and paper to a poor school on the other side of the world would that change things? Then would Bob be more charitable than Alice? What if Bob spends no money, but he volunteers at a soup kitchen two days a week? Now Alice is infinitely more charitable than Bob because she gives infinitely more money?
My only points were that a)not all giving is of the same type, and b) dollar values don’t really measure who is more or less giving. And in particular, donating a bunch of money to a club *of which you are a member* is not inherently more charitable than donating a small amount of money to an organization that will not directly benefit you.
Because exactly like Alice, he wants to see the results of his giving in his own community. They are both trying to change the world in ways that benefit them.
I agree. But are you claiming that actually Alice *is* five times as charitable as Bob? Is Alice doing five times as much good? Is Alice helping five times as much? If I changed it to Bob sending $20 worth of books, pens, and paper to a poor school on the other side of the world would that change things? Then would Bob be more charitable than Alice? What if Bob spends no money, but he volunteers at a soup kitchen two days a week? Now Alice is infinitely more charitable than Bob because she gives infinitely more money?
My only points were that a)not all giving is of the same type, and b) dollar values don’t really measure who is more or less giving. And in particular, donating a bunch of money to a club *of which you are a member* is not inherently more charitable than donating a small amount of money to an organization that will not directly benefit you.
Because exactly like Alice, he wants to see the results of his giving in his own community. They are both trying to change the world in ways that benefit them.
I agree. But are you claiming that actually Alice *is* five times as charitable as Bob? Is Alice doing five times as much good? Is Alice helping five times as much? If I changed it to Bob sending $20 worth of books, pens, and paper to a poor school on the other side of the world would that change things? Then would Bob be more charitable than Alice? What if Bob spends no money, but he volunteers at a soup kitchen two days a week? Now Alice is infinitely more charitable than Bob because she gives infinitely more money?
My only points were that a)not all giving is of the same type, and b) dollar values don’t really measure who is more or less giving. And in particular, donating a bunch of money to a club *of which you are a member* is not inherently more charitable than donating a small amount of money to an organization that will not directly benefit you.
slist cover the flaws in your reasoning fairly well, Duff, but to hammer that dead horse, the fact that you might hypothetically give to a door-to-door collection effort by a non-affiliated church has nothing whatsoever to do with the relation between the source and recipient of most donations offered to churches. It’s a pure red herring.
Would that be charity? Or would it stop being charity if I joined their church?
It would be you making your own life better, along with the co-religionists with whom you share fellowship. I would not perforce be an example of you “trying to make the world a better place” as you claimed your conservative views impel you to do, at least not in the sense that this phrase is commonly understood. I may technically be making the world a better place if I remodel my kitchen, but no one would mistake that for a charitable endeavor; the degree that I’m contributing to the church to which I belong in order to allow it to continue to exist so that I can remain a member does in fact taint the moral superiority and selfless spirit that higher conservative giving to religious concerns purportedly demonstrates.
slist cover the flaws in your reasoning fairly well, Duff, but to hammer that dead horse, the fact that you might hypothetically give to a door-to-door collection effort by a non-affiliated church has nothing whatsoever to do with the relation between the source and recipient of most donations offered to churches. It’s a pure red herring.
Would that be charity? Or would it stop being charity if I joined their church?
It would be you making your own life better, along with the co-religionists with whom you share fellowship. I would not perforce be an example of you “trying to make the world a better place” as you claimed your conservative views impel you to do, at least not in the sense that this phrase is commonly understood. I may technically be making the world a better place if I remodel my kitchen, but no one would mistake that for a charitable endeavor; the degree that I’m contributing to the church to which I belong in order to allow it to continue to exist so that I can remain a member does in fact taint the moral superiority and selfless spirit that higher conservative giving to religious concerns purportedly demonstrates.
slist cover the flaws in your reasoning fairly well, Duff, but to hammer that dead horse, the fact that you might hypothetically give to a door-to-door collection effort by a non-affiliated church has nothing whatsoever to do with the relation between the source and recipient of most donations offered to churches. It’s a pure red herring.
Would that be charity? Or would it stop being charity if I joined their church?
It would be you making your own life better, along with the co-religionists with whom you share fellowship. I would not perforce be an example of you “trying to make the world a better place” as you claimed your conservative views impel you to do, at least not in the sense that this phrase is commonly understood. I may technically be making the world a better place if I remodel my kitchen, but no one would mistake that for a charitable endeavor; the degree that I’m contributing to the church to which I belong in order to allow it to continue to exist so that I can remain a member does in fact taint the moral superiority and selfless spirit that higher conservative giving to religious concerns purportedly demonstrates.
*It would not perforce…
*It would not perforce…
*It would not perforce…
It would be you making your own life better
When someone who doesn’t like homelessness gives money to build a homeless shelter, they are making their own life better. Otherwise they wouldn’t do it. They are being selfish. They are spending money on the things they want rather than on the things other people want.
That doesn’t mean it isn’t charity.
Donating money to help build a church in which you and those who believe as you do will worship God is charity. None of you seem to be willing to accept that, but that is reality.
It is not sort of charity, it is not charity that has reduced value because you don’t like churches, it is charity.
People are more willing to give money to help someone from their family than they are to help someone who is not in their family, and people are more willing to give to help someone in their city than they are to help someone in a city they have never heard of, and people are more willing to help someone from their country than they are to help someone from a country they can’t find on a map.
This is true of conservatives and liberals.
The theme of this thread is that liberals see that conservatives contribute more to charity than liberals, and they feel bad. As they should. They want to minimize the contributions of conservatives, and try to find a way that those contributions don’t count, in order to feel better about themselves.
Whatever else you want to say about Mormons, they belong to a religion that has convinced followers to donate one dollar out of every ten to something other than their own instant gratification.
I think that is pretty powerful. Maybe instead of disparaging that, liberals could try to find a way to make that same kind of thing work in their communities.
There are ways to help people that have nothing whatsoever to do with the government. There are ways for people to manage their common lives that have nothing to do with government.
It would be you making your own life better
When someone who doesn’t like homelessness gives money to build a homeless shelter, they are making their own life better. Otherwise they wouldn’t do it. They are being selfish. They are spending money on the things they want rather than on the things other people want.
That doesn’t mean it isn’t charity.
Donating money to help build a church in which you and those who believe as you do will worship God is charity. None of you seem to be willing to accept that, but that is reality.
It is not sort of charity, it is not charity that has reduced value because you don’t like churches, it is charity.
People are more willing to give money to help someone from their family than they are to help someone who is not in their family, and people are more willing to give to help someone in their city than they are to help someone in a city they have never heard of, and people are more willing to help someone from their country than they are to help someone from a country they can’t find on a map.
This is true of conservatives and liberals.
The theme of this thread is that liberals see that conservatives contribute more to charity than liberals, and they feel bad. As they should. They want to minimize the contributions of conservatives, and try to find a way that those contributions don’t count, in order to feel better about themselves.
Whatever else you want to say about Mormons, they belong to a religion that has convinced followers to donate one dollar out of every ten to something other than their own instant gratification.
I think that is pretty powerful. Maybe instead of disparaging that, liberals could try to find a way to make that same kind of thing work in their communities.
There are ways to help people that have nothing whatsoever to do with the government. There are ways for people to manage their common lives that have nothing to do with government.
It would be you making your own life better
When someone who doesn’t like homelessness gives money to build a homeless shelter, they are making their own life better. Otherwise they wouldn’t do it. They are being selfish. They are spending money on the things they want rather than on the things other people want.
That doesn’t mean it isn’t charity.
Donating money to help build a church in which you and those who believe as you do will worship God is charity. None of you seem to be willing to accept that, but that is reality.
It is not sort of charity, it is not charity that has reduced value because you don’t like churches, it is charity.
People are more willing to give money to help someone from their family than they are to help someone who is not in their family, and people are more willing to give to help someone in their city than they are to help someone in a city they have never heard of, and people are more willing to help someone from their country than they are to help someone from a country they can’t find on a map.
This is true of conservatives and liberals.
The theme of this thread is that liberals see that conservatives contribute more to charity than liberals, and they feel bad. As they should. They want to minimize the contributions of conservatives, and try to find a way that those contributions don’t count, in order to feel better about themselves.
Whatever else you want to say about Mormons, they belong to a religion that has convinced followers to donate one dollar out of every ten to something other than their own instant gratification.
I think that is pretty powerful. Maybe instead of disparaging that, liberals could try to find a way to make that same kind of thing work in their communities.
There are ways to help people that have nothing whatsoever to do with the government. There are ways for people to manage their common lives that have nothing to do with government.
Donating money to help build a church in which you and those who believe as you do will worship God is charity.
That’s 100% true, and it’s 100% beside the point, as regards the discussion that has followed on Brett’s initial assertions about conservative vs liberal charitable giving.
People are more willing to give money to help someone from their family than they are to help someone who is not in their family, and people are more willing to give to help someone in their city than they are to help someone in a city they have never heard of, and people are more willing to help someone from their country than they are to help someone from a country they can’t find on a map.
This is (a) not always true, and (b) who cares? How is this relevant, in any way, to any of the topics under discussion?
The theme of this thread is that liberals see that conservatives contribute more to charity than liberals, and they feel bad. As they should. They want to minimize the contributions of conservatives, and try to find a way that those contributions don’t count, in order to feel better about themselves.
You know what I freaking hate? I hate people who aren’t me telling me what I think.
You don’t know what I think. You don’t know what my intentions are, you don’t know how I feel about anything that’s been written in this thread or anywhere else, you know bugger all about me.
Everything you know about me is what I have written here or elsewhere, and that’s if you are an honest and attentive reader, which is actually not in evidence.
If you want to talk to me, or basically anyone else here, address what we say, not what the imaginary cartoon “liberals” in your head say.
Or, just go the hell away.
But your contribution here so far has been BS.
Donating money to help build a church in which you and those who believe as you do will worship God is charity.
That’s 100% true, and it’s 100% beside the point, as regards the discussion that has followed on Brett’s initial assertions about conservative vs liberal charitable giving.
People are more willing to give money to help someone from their family than they are to help someone who is not in their family, and people are more willing to give to help someone in their city than they are to help someone in a city they have never heard of, and people are more willing to help someone from their country than they are to help someone from a country they can’t find on a map.
This is (a) not always true, and (b) who cares? How is this relevant, in any way, to any of the topics under discussion?
The theme of this thread is that liberals see that conservatives contribute more to charity than liberals, and they feel bad. As they should. They want to minimize the contributions of conservatives, and try to find a way that those contributions don’t count, in order to feel better about themselves.
You know what I freaking hate? I hate people who aren’t me telling me what I think.
You don’t know what I think. You don’t know what my intentions are, you don’t know how I feel about anything that’s been written in this thread or anywhere else, you know bugger all about me.
Everything you know about me is what I have written here or elsewhere, and that’s if you are an honest and attentive reader, which is actually not in evidence.
If you want to talk to me, or basically anyone else here, address what we say, not what the imaginary cartoon “liberals” in your head say.
Or, just go the hell away.
But your contribution here so far has been BS.
Donating money to help build a church in which you and those who believe as you do will worship God is charity.
That’s 100% true, and it’s 100% beside the point, as regards the discussion that has followed on Brett’s initial assertions about conservative vs liberal charitable giving.
People are more willing to give money to help someone from their family than they are to help someone who is not in their family, and people are more willing to give to help someone in their city than they are to help someone in a city they have never heard of, and people are more willing to help someone from their country than they are to help someone from a country they can’t find on a map.
This is (a) not always true, and (b) who cares? How is this relevant, in any way, to any of the topics under discussion?
The theme of this thread is that liberals see that conservatives contribute more to charity than liberals, and they feel bad. As they should. They want to minimize the contributions of conservatives, and try to find a way that those contributions don’t count, in order to feel better about themselves.
You know what I freaking hate? I hate people who aren’t me telling me what I think.
You don’t know what I think. You don’t know what my intentions are, you don’t know how I feel about anything that’s been written in this thread or anywhere else, you know bugger all about me.
Everything you know about me is what I have written here or elsewhere, and that’s if you are an honest and attentive reader, which is actually not in evidence.
If you want to talk to me, or basically anyone else here, address what we say, not what the imaginary cartoon “liberals” in your head say.
Or, just go the hell away.
But your contribution here so far has been BS.
There are ways to help people that have nothing whatsoever to do with the government.
And some people are convinced that preaching to them is one of those ways.
I personally think that musical theater (which shares many characteristics with church services) makes people wiser, nobler, deeper souls. So, if I donate to Sunday Morning Community Playhouse that’s charity by your definition, right Duff?
BTW, every Christmas I break out a CD of carols by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Man, those Mormons can sing!
–TP
There are ways to help people that have nothing whatsoever to do with the government.
And some people are convinced that preaching to them is one of those ways.
I personally think that musical theater (which shares many characteristics with church services) makes people wiser, nobler, deeper souls. So, if I donate to Sunday Morning Community Playhouse that’s charity by your definition, right Duff?
BTW, every Christmas I break out a CD of carols by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Man, those Mormons can sing!
–TP
There are ways to help people that have nothing whatsoever to do with the government.
And some people are convinced that preaching to them is one of those ways.
I personally think that musical theater (which shares many characteristics with church services) makes people wiser, nobler, deeper souls. So, if I donate to Sunday Morning Community Playhouse that’s charity by your definition, right Duff?
BTW, every Christmas I break out a CD of carols by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. Man, those Mormons can sing!
–TP
It is not sort of charity, it is not charity that has reduced value because you don’t like churches, it is charity.
No. It’s not charity. Not always, and not by definition. If that’s charity, then me paying membership dues to a social club is “charity”. Churches may perform charitable work, but not all work that churches perform is charitable; unless we beg the question, donating to a church is not perforce donating to a charitable endeavor, nor is it a clear of sign that the person giving the money is doing so out of a choice to spend their money to make the world a better place rather than spending it to make their life better. It’s donating to a social organization that may do charitable work with said donation, or may spend it on administrative costs… or may spend it on social functions for its members. And that latter is fine, but it ain’t charity. This is not at all the same as observing that a person who e.g. volunteers is volunteering out of selfishness because they derive satisfaction from it – this is saying that when a church member gives money that primarily goes to benefit people who are just as fortunate as them, and to provide a social environment for them moreso than tending to physical needs, it’s not perforce giving money to charity, and it’s laughable to claim that dollar-to-dollar donations to a charity is comparable to those to a church. The point of the church is to exist as a social organism for its members. The point of a charity is to provide some sort of service or aid to some or all members of the public. It’s not some sort of deranged liberal hatred for religion driving that observation, it’s a simple understanding of the stated goals of each sort of organization. But if comparing church-dollar-apples to charity-dollar-oranges gives you a warm fuzzy feeling of smug superiority, don’t let me stand in the way of your happiness.
It is not sort of charity, it is not charity that has reduced value because you don’t like churches, it is charity.
No. It’s not charity. Not always, and not by definition. If that’s charity, then me paying membership dues to a social club is “charity”. Churches may perform charitable work, but not all work that churches perform is charitable; unless we beg the question, donating to a church is not perforce donating to a charitable endeavor, nor is it a clear of sign that the person giving the money is doing so out of a choice to spend their money to make the world a better place rather than spending it to make their life better. It’s donating to a social organization that may do charitable work with said donation, or may spend it on administrative costs… or may spend it on social functions for its members. And that latter is fine, but it ain’t charity. This is not at all the same as observing that a person who e.g. volunteers is volunteering out of selfishness because they derive satisfaction from it – this is saying that when a church member gives money that primarily goes to benefit people who are just as fortunate as them, and to provide a social environment for them moreso than tending to physical needs, it’s not perforce giving money to charity, and it’s laughable to claim that dollar-to-dollar donations to a charity is comparable to those to a church. The point of the church is to exist as a social organism for its members. The point of a charity is to provide some sort of service or aid to some or all members of the public. It’s not some sort of deranged liberal hatred for religion driving that observation, it’s a simple understanding of the stated goals of each sort of organization. But if comparing church-dollar-apples to charity-dollar-oranges gives you a warm fuzzy feeling of smug superiority, don’t let me stand in the way of your happiness.
It is not sort of charity, it is not charity that has reduced value because you don’t like churches, it is charity.
No. It’s not charity. Not always, and not by definition. If that’s charity, then me paying membership dues to a social club is “charity”. Churches may perform charitable work, but not all work that churches perform is charitable; unless we beg the question, donating to a church is not perforce donating to a charitable endeavor, nor is it a clear of sign that the person giving the money is doing so out of a choice to spend their money to make the world a better place rather than spending it to make their life better. It’s donating to a social organization that may do charitable work with said donation, or may spend it on administrative costs… or may spend it on social functions for its members. And that latter is fine, but it ain’t charity. This is not at all the same as observing that a person who e.g. volunteers is volunteering out of selfishness because they derive satisfaction from it – this is saying that when a church member gives money that primarily goes to benefit people who are just as fortunate as them, and to provide a social environment for them moreso than tending to physical needs, it’s not perforce giving money to charity, and it’s laughable to claim that dollar-to-dollar donations to a charity is comparable to those to a church. The point of the church is to exist as a social organism for its members. The point of a charity is to provide some sort of service or aid to some or all members of the public. It’s not some sort of deranged liberal hatred for religion driving that observation, it’s a simple understanding of the stated goals of each sort of organization. But if comparing church-dollar-apples to charity-dollar-oranges gives you a warm fuzzy feeling of smug superiority, don’t let me stand in the way of your happiness.
donating to many kinds of social clubs *is* charity, by the legal definition of charity, which is a donation to a charitable organization.
fraternal organizations incorporated under IRS 501(c)(8) or 501(c)(10) are charitable organizations, and donations to them are tax-exempt for that reason.
the Masons, the Moose, the Modern Woodmen Association of America. All charities, and donations made to them are charitable donations.
they all do good things, if you like them and want to support their work, by all means donate to them. you will, as D Clarity asserts, be making the world a better place, by your lights.
well done, mazel tov. we all applaud you.
none of that is relevant to the point we are discussing. way upthread, we had this, from Brett:
are liberals ducking out of their own obligations toward the poor and needy by making rich people pay the bills via taxes?
are conservatives, by contrast, fulfilling their obligations toward the poor and needy by making charitable contributions?
Brett doesn’t actually have the stones to make that assertion, but he clearly would have us conclude “yes”, because conservative famously give more money to charities than liberals.
All of the subsequent discussion on the topic has been addressed to the question of whether donations to charities can correctly be equated to *fulfilling ones obligations toward the poor and needy*, because not all charitable gifts are actually intended to do that, and/or not all actually end up doing that.
That’s the topic of discussion in this thread. It’s actually off the topic of the original post, but that’s fine.
Frankly I’d prefer if the whole thing wasn’t presented as some kind of “who holds the moral high ground?” pissing match, but those are the terms in which the question was presented, so those appear to be the terms in which we’re discussing it.
What we’re not talking about is whether giving money to a church is a charitable gift, in the sense of a gift of money to an organization or cause that you might think is worthwhile. Everybody understands that it is.
What we are talking about is whether doing so can fairly be considered the equivalent of addressing the financial or social needs of people who are in distress.
Hopefully the distinction between the two is not all that hard to twig.
If it is, maybe this isn’t the place for you.
donating to many kinds of social clubs *is* charity, by the legal definition of charity, which is a donation to a charitable organization.
fraternal organizations incorporated under IRS 501(c)(8) or 501(c)(10) are charitable organizations, and donations to them are tax-exempt for that reason.
the Masons, the Moose, the Modern Woodmen Association of America. All charities, and donations made to them are charitable donations.
they all do good things, if you like them and want to support their work, by all means donate to them. you will, as D Clarity asserts, be making the world a better place, by your lights.
well done, mazel tov. we all applaud you.
none of that is relevant to the point we are discussing. way upthread, we had this, from Brett:
are liberals ducking out of their own obligations toward the poor and needy by making rich people pay the bills via taxes?
are conservatives, by contrast, fulfilling their obligations toward the poor and needy by making charitable contributions?
Brett doesn’t actually have the stones to make that assertion, but he clearly would have us conclude “yes”, because conservative famously give more money to charities than liberals.
All of the subsequent discussion on the topic has been addressed to the question of whether donations to charities can correctly be equated to *fulfilling ones obligations toward the poor and needy*, because not all charitable gifts are actually intended to do that, and/or not all actually end up doing that.
That’s the topic of discussion in this thread. It’s actually off the topic of the original post, but that’s fine.
Frankly I’d prefer if the whole thing wasn’t presented as some kind of “who holds the moral high ground?” pissing match, but those are the terms in which the question was presented, so those appear to be the terms in which we’re discussing it.
What we’re not talking about is whether giving money to a church is a charitable gift, in the sense of a gift of money to an organization or cause that you might think is worthwhile. Everybody understands that it is.
What we are talking about is whether doing so can fairly be considered the equivalent of addressing the financial or social needs of people who are in distress.
Hopefully the distinction between the two is not all that hard to twig.
If it is, maybe this isn’t the place for you.
donating to many kinds of social clubs *is* charity, by the legal definition of charity, which is a donation to a charitable organization.
fraternal organizations incorporated under IRS 501(c)(8) or 501(c)(10) are charitable organizations, and donations to them are tax-exempt for that reason.
the Masons, the Moose, the Modern Woodmen Association of America. All charities, and donations made to them are charitable donations.
they all do good things, if you like them and want to support their work, by all means donate to them. you will, as D Clarity asserts, be making the world a better place, by your lights.
well done, mazel tov. we all applaud you.
none of that is relevant to the point we are discussing. way upthread, we had this, from Brett:
are liberals ducking out of their own obligations toward the poor and needy by making rich people pay the bills via taxes?
are conservatives, by contrast, fulfilling their obligations toward the poor and needy by making charitable contributions?
Brett doesn’t actually have the stones to make that assertion, but he clearly would have us conclude “yes”, because conservative famously give more money to charities than liberals.
All of the subsequent discussion on the topic has been addressed to the question of whether donations to charities can correctly be equated to *fulfilling ones obligations toward the poor and needy*, because not all charitable gifts are actually intended to do that, and/or not all actually end up doing that.
That’s the topic of discussion in this thread. It’s actually off the topic of the original post, but that’s fine.
Frankly I’d prefer if the whole thing wasn’t presented as some kind of “who holds the moral high ground?” pissing match, but those are the terms in which the question was presented, so those appear to be the terms in which we’re discussing it.
What we’re not talking about is whether giving money to a church is a charitable gift, in the sense of a gift of money to an organization or cause that you might think is worthwhile. Everybody understands that it is.
What we are talking about is whether doing so can fairly be considered the equivalent of addressing the financial or social needs of people who are in distress.
Hopefully the distinction between the two is not all that hard to twig.
If it is, maybe this isn’t the place for you.
me paying membership dues to a social club is “charity”.
Paying dues isn’t. Donating to build a new building is. Consult your tax advisor.
The point of the church is to exist as a social organism for its members
I’m not a member of a church, but no, that is not the point of the church. The point of a church is not to “exist as a social organism for its members”.
The point of a charity is to provide some sort of service or aid to some or all members of the public
“Some or all” is doing a lot of work there. Churches provide services to some members of the public. But all? Planned Parenthood provides a service to all members of the public? There are many members of the public, including myself, that do not feel that way. Is Planned Parenthood providing me a service? What service, pray tell, is that? Are they no longer a charity because the service they provide is against my views?
if comparing church-dollar-apples to charity-dollar-oranges gives you a warm fuzzy feeling of smug superiority
Not a member of a church. I have donated money to religious organizations, when it suited my purposes.
People that donate 10% of their income to charity, which includes giving to a church, are entitled to a warm fuzzy feeling of smug superiority. I’m not one of them yet.
me paying membership dues to a social club is “charity”.
Paying dues isn’t. Donating to build a new building is. Consult your tax advisor.
The point of the church is to exist as a social organism for its members
I’m not a member of a church, but no, that is not the point of the church. The point of a church is not to “exist as a social organism for its members”.
The point of a charity is to provide some sort of service or aid to some or all members of the public
“Some or all” is doing a lot of work there. Churches provide services to some members of the public. But all? Planned Parenthood provides a service to all members of the public? There are many members of the public, including myself, that do not feel that way. Is Planned Parenthood providing me a service? What service, pray tell, is that? Are they no longer a charity because the service they provide is against my views?
if comparing church-dollar-apples to charity-dollar-oranges gives you a warm fuzzy feeling of smug superiority
Not a member of a church. I have donated money to religious organizations, when it suited my purposes.
People that donate 10% of their income to charity, which includes giving to a church, are entitled to a warm fuzzy feeling of smug superiority. I’m not one of them yet.
me paying membership dues to a social club is “charity”.
Paying dues isn’t. Donating to build a new building is. Consult your tax advisor.
The point of the church is to exist as a social organism for its members
I’m not a member of a church, but no, that is not the point of the church. The point of a church is not to “exist as a social organism for its members”.
The point of a charity is to provide some sort of service or aid to some or all members of the public
“Some or all” is doing a lot of work there. Churches provide services to some members of the public. But all? Planned Parenthood provides a service to all members of the public? There are many members of the public, including myself, that do not feel that way. Is Planned Parenthood providing me a service? What service, pray tell, is that? Are they no longer a charity because the service they provide is against my views?
if comparing church-dollar-apples to charity-dollar-oranges gives you a warm fuzzy feeling of smug superiority
Not a member of a church. I have donated money to religious organizations, when it suited my purposes.
People that donate 10% of their income to charity, which includes giving to a church, are entitled to a warm fuzzy feeling of smug superiority. I’m not one of them yet.
Frankly I’d prefer if the whole thing wasn’t presented as some kind of “who holds the moral high ground?” pissing match…
You do realize this is the internet, no? ;^)
Frankly I’d prefer if the whole thing wasn’t presented as some kind of “who holds the moral high ground?” pissing match…
You do realize this is the internet, no? ;^)
Frankly I’d prefer if the whole thing wasn’t presented as some kind of “who holds the moral high ground?” pissing match…
You do realize this is the internet, no? ;^)
are liberals ducking out of their own obligations toward the poor and needy by making rich people pay the bills via taxes?
Only recently has Social Security receipts been balanced by payments made by the program. For decades the “surplus” was parked in government bonds, the proceed from which funded the Treasury.
So in fact many of those poor slob Democrats were funding the government with their Social Security wage taxes.
The rich used their boodle to buy those bonds. Their tax payments, in turn, help to pay off that debt.
Circle of Life.
are liberals ducking out of their own obligations toward the poor and needy by making rich people pay the bills via taxes?
Only recently has Social Security receipts been balanced by payments made by the program. For decades the “surplus” was parked in government bonds, the proceed from which funded the Treasury.
So in fact many of those poor slob Democrats were funding the government with their Social Security wage taxes.
The rich used their boodle to buy those bonds. Their tax payments, in turn, help to pay off that debt.
Circle of Life.
are liberals ducking out of their own obligations toward the poor and needy by making rich people pay the bills via taxes?
Only recently has Social Security receipts been balanced by payments made by the program. For decades the “surplus” was parked in government bonds, the proceed from which funded the Treasury.
So in fact many of those poor slob Democrats were funding the government with their Social Security wage taxes.
The rich used their boodle to buy those bonds. Their tax payments, in turn, help to pay off that debt.
Circle of Life.
People that donate 10% of their income to charity, which includes giving to a church, are entitled to a warm fuzzy feeling of smug superiority.
You mean, like, Scientologists?
People that donate 10% of their income to charity, which includes giving to a church, are entitled to a warm fuzzy feeling of smug superiority.
You mean, like, Scientologists?
People that donate 10% of their income to charity, which includes giving to a church, are entitled to a warm fuzzy feeling of smug superiority.
You mean, like, Scientologists?
Well we’re right back where we started. Is it only charity when it is donated to causes you approve of, bobbyp?
Is donating to Scientologists charity?
Well we’re right back where we started. Is it only charity when it is donated to causes you approve of, bobbyp?
Is donating to Scientologists charity?
Well we’re right back where we started. Is it only charity when it is donated to causes you approve of, bobbyp?
Is donating to Scientologists charity?
if we give you nickel, will you go away?
if we give you nickel, will you go away?
if we give you nickel, will you go away?
i forgot the smiley, so that you would know that I’m taking the piss.
if we give you a nickel, will you go away? 🙂
i forgot the smiley, so that you would know that I’m taking the piss.
if we give you a nickel, will you go away? 🙂
i forgot the smiley, so that you would know that I’m taking the piss.
if we give you a nickel, will you go away? 🙂
Sure, sounds fair to me.
Sure, sounds fair to me.
Sure, sounds fair to me.
All it took was a nickel?
You’re welcome to hang out D Clarity, but please enough already with the “it’s only charity if it’s something you approve of” vibe.
There are two usages of “charity” going on in the thread:
1. Any donation to an organization or cause that the donor thinks is worthwhile
2. Donations that directly help people in financial need
Everybody understands that (1) is charity, in the obvious sense of a charitable contribution, meaning a contribution given willingly and with good intent.
The reason folks are trying to distinguish between that broader definition of charity, and the more narrow meaning i.e. (2), is to address Brett’s claim from 3/26.
If it makes you feel better, donations to save the whales, or the redwoods, or to free Abu Mumia-Jamal, would likewise “not count” as charitable gifts that directly help people in financial need.
See? It applies equally to left and right and whatever else is floating around.
The discussion was prompted by, and is in response to, Brett’s claim about liberals “ducking out” of their obligations to, specifically, the poor, whereas conservatives fulfill theirs via their charitable giving.
As far as religion goes, there are lefties here who are religious and lefties who are atheists, and righties here who are religious and righties here who are atheists. There is no consistent point of view on religion and/or its practice here from either side of the aisle.
All it took was a nickel?
You’re welcome to hang out D Clarity, but please enough already with the “it’s only charity if it’s something you approve of” vibe.
There are two usages of “charity” going on in the thread:
1. Any donation to an organization or cause that the donor thinks is worthwhile
2. Donations that directly help people in financial need
Everybody understands that (1) is charity, in the obvious sense of a charitable contribution, meaning a contribution given willingly and with good intent.
The reason folks are trying to distinguish between that broader definition of charity, and the more narrow meaning i.e. (2), is to address Brett’s claim from 3/26.
If it makes you feel better, donations to save the whales, or the redwoods, or to free Abu Mumia-Jamal, would likewise “not count” as charitable gifts that directly help people in financial need.
See? It applies equally to left and right and whatever else is floating around.
The discussion was prompted by, and is in response to, Brett’s claim about liberals “ducking out” of their obligations to, specifically, the poor, whereas conservatives fulfill theirs via their charitable giving.
As far as religion goes, there are lefties here who are religious and lefties who are atheists, and righties here who are religious and righties here who are atheists. There is no consistent point of view on religion and/or its practice here from either side of the aisle.
All it took was a nickel?
You’re welcome to hang out D Clarity, but please enough already with the “it’s only charity if it’s something you approve of” vibe.
There are two usages of “charity” going on in the thread:
1. Any donation to an organization or cause that the donor thinks is worthwhile
2. Donations that directly help people in financial need
Everybody understands that (1) is charity, in the obvious sense of a charitable contribution, meaning a contribution given willingly and with good intent.
The reason folks are trying to distinguish between that broader definition of charity, and the more narrow meaning i.e. (2), is to address Brett’s claim from 3/26.
If it makes you feel better, donations to save the whales, or the redwoods, or to free Abu Mumia-Jamal, would likewise “not count” as charitable gifts that directly help people in financial need.
See? It applies equally to left and right and whatever else is floating around.
The discussion was prompted by, and is in response to, Brett’s claim about liberals “ducking out” of their obligations to, specifically, the poor, whereas conservatives fulfill theirs via their charitable giving.
As far as religion goes, there are lefties here who are religious and lefties who are atheists, and righties here who are religious and righties here who are atheists. There is no consistent point of view on religion and/or its practice here from either side of the aisle.
Not to mention that part of the discussion was also about how religious organizations do directly help the poor and that, to the extent that they do so and people donate for those specific purposes or their general religious giving goes in some portion to directly helping the poor, it meets the more narrow definition of charity – a definition that could be construed as being for the purposes of this specific discussion and not some attempt to redefine the meaning of charity outside beyond this discussion.
But we’re just a bunch of anti-religion liberals, as are most if not all liberals, right?
Not to mention that part of the discussion was also about how religious organizations do directly help the poor and that, to the extent that they do so and people donate for those specific purposes or their general religious giving goes in some portion to directly helping the poor, it meets the more narrow definition of charity – a definition that could be construed as being for the purposes of this specific discussion and not some attempt to redefine the meaning of charity outside beyond this discussion.
But we’re just a bunch of anti-religion liberals, as are most if not all liberals, right?
Not to mention that part of the discussion was also about how religious organizations do directly help the poor and that, to the extent that they do so and people donate for those specific purposes or their general religious giving goes in some portion to directly helping the poor, it meets the more narrow definition of charity – a definition that could be construed as being for the purposes of this specific discussion and not some attempt to redefine the meaning of charity outside beyond this discussion.
But we’re just a bunch of anti-religion liberals, as are most if not all liberals, right?
I apologize for my part in muddying the waters by failing to disambiguate between the two senses of charity. Russell precisely captured the distinction I was verbosely and inelegantly striving to make in his 8:54 comment.
I apologize for my part in muddying the waters by failing to disambiguate between the two senses of charity. Russell precisely captured the distinction I was verbosely and inelegantly striving to make in his 8:54 comment.
I apologize for my part in muddying the waters by failing to disambiguate between the two senses of charity. Russell precisely captured the distinction I was verbosely and inelegantly striving to make in his 8:54 comment.
Russell’s 8:54 makes an excellent and useful distinction.
Russell’s 8:54 makes an excellent and useful distinction.
Russell’s 8:54 makes an excellent and useful distinction.