It's fairly well known that Americans are the most generous people on earth. Look over the stats for any given disaster anywhere in the world or just per capita giving to charities and we beat everyone else hands down.
Elisabeth Eaves tries to analyze this phenomena in a column on Forbes.com and she discovers along the way some surprising answers.
The more studies you read about motivations for philanthropy, the
murkier they become. One fact, though, does stand out: Among developed
nations, those with higher taxes and bigger social safety nets tend to
have lower rates of giving. In charitable giving as a percentage of
GDP, nations with cradle-to-grave welfare systems rank far down the
Johns Hopkins list: Sweden 18th, France 21st, Germany 32nd.
Imagine that! The principle of cause and effect actually works. More money and less taxes means people give more. If you have money, you give. If you don't, you use it for yourself. If you are already paying the state a premium tax rate, you expect the state to take care of the others.
She also found out that Dick Cheney, the flinty-hearted, dark lord of Conservatism, and his wife gave a substantial amount of their income to charity. The Cheneys gave 6.9 million dollars away in 2005 or 78 percent of their income.
Her liberal friends were astounded when she shared that information with them and indeed, Ms. Eaves appears to not quite get her mind around it either.
It's easy to attribute cynical motives to givers. Having been surprised to read
that Dick and Lynn Cheney gave 78% of their income away in 2005, I
mentioned the figure to several friends and family members, resulting
in much sputtering.
Since it struck them as impossible that the
Dark Lord himself could give so much to charity out of, well, charity,
they groped for other explanations--and quickly hit upon the tax break.
I
don't know about the Cheneys, but the tax break can't account for most
American giving. After all, you still have less money after your
donation than you did before--depending on what you earn, the hit to
your pocket book is at least 65% of the dollar figure you gave, and
more if you're not in the top income bracket.
What's hilarious is the liberal view of Conservatives. They are certain there must be some ulterior motive other than plain altruism. Certainly, the tax advantage is lost if you are giving over half of what you made away to charity. It's just plain inconceivable to these people that anyone, let a lone a liberal, would just give away that kind of money.
In the same article that she links to (and is linked to as well in the quote), it's noted that the Obamas gave less than one percent of their income in 2005 to charity. Ms. Eaves doesn't mention that in her op-ed. There might be good reasons for the Obamas not giving more and it's not up to me to judge anyone's charitable giving. However, it's hard not to make at least a mention that one percent seems kind of stingy when your income is well into the 6 figures.
Ms. Eaves comes to a rather odd conclusion.
In the end I don't think Americans are more generous in their hearts
than other people, nor that they have more cynical motives than anyone
else. They are responding, rather, to their culture.
In other words, we really aren't generous, we are just culturally programmed to open up our wallets more than others. I suppose there is truth there, but I don't think that's the entire reason. We choose to be generous because we've been blessed with abundance and we feel a duty to share our bounty. But is it entirely cultural? I think not. She seems to think along the same lines or at least entertains the idea. At the end of the next (and penultimate) paragraph, she somewhat contradicts her own conclusion with these words:
Maybe it's a recognition
that with individual freedom comes responsibility, too.
In other words, along with the cultural programming, we also recognize we have a duty to be generous. Recognition implies we understand charity and our desire to help is at more than just a Pavlovian level.
In the last paragraph she again states her conclusion.
In philanthropy in America, public morality plays its proper role:
causing members to do what's good for the group, through expectation
and social pressure rather than the law.
She completely ignores her statement that maybe we understand it's the right thing to do rather than some sort of cultural obligation. We give because it's what is expected.
There may be some who do so out of peer pressure or social expectation, but I like to think we give because we recognize and understand the need. There is a difference.
VW
