rushmc 23 #26 June 19, 2006 I was refering to the reply's in the context of Zippos comment. Sorry for the confusion"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #27 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote Second direct hit Thats gonna leave a mark.... Oh yeah, a story stating that Americans are generous really hurts! But also, I have read many stories citing other stats that say the opposite. What it comes down to is it's much easier to quantify government aid than private charity. For instance, is all that money getting to the recipient, or is a high percentage paying admin costs of the respective charities? Some charities have admin costs amounting to over 90% of their taken-in donations. And really, the thread was going in the direction of welfare/social programs paid for by taxes vs. paying for these kinds of things with charitable gifts. It would be interesting to compare the overhead associated with charities, compared with the overhead associated with welfare paid for by taxes. I have become very selective about what I donate to after some of the 90% overhead "charities" have been exposed. In addition it may be worth mentioning that not all charitable donations go to "good works". A big donation to the local symphony orchestra or opera counts, but doesn't feed and clothe the poor. Then there are the big donations to colleges that, perchance, shortly thereafter admit your unqualified idiot grandson under a legacy program. Dead right on! The Freedom Allaince run by Sean Hannity and Oliver North rasie money for the children of fallen soldiers (not just the Iraq war) 100% of donated dollars go to the charity as Oliver and Sean pay the admistrative fees from their own pockets. There is one here in Iowa for police officers that was found to give way under 20% (not an offical Iowa Police Officers charity)"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #28 June 19, 2006 One of my favorite charities. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #29 June 19, 2006 Giving is great. Giving and letting people know that you give is sooo tacky Is it the giving or the knowledge of the giving that's important? . (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #30 June 19, 2006 QuoteI find myself in agreement with JR. It must have really hurt you to say that... Don't you want to call my posting "propaganda from a right-wing organization"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,119 #31 June 19, 2006 >For a LOT less, you can LOAN the village a shovel When I was in Africa, the Peace Corps people I was with used such money to buy concrete forms that were used to pour the well casing. Then they'd loan em out. The local people would dig the well and pour the concrete. (And most of the time they'd muck it up, so they got used to sending a few volunteers to oversee the work along with the forms.) I think I still have pictures of the old well vs the new well. A muddy hole in the ground vs a deeper well with pretty clean water. That's a pretty good use of money in my book. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #32 June 19, 2006 QuoteI have read many stories citing other stats that say the opposite. But you didn't post any of them for independent verification and critique. Quotethe thread was going in the direction of welfare/social programs paid for by taxes vs. paying for these kinds of things with charitable gifts. Threads can go in all kinds of directions, but just because someone headed it off on a tangent, doesn't mean that someone else can't pull it back to the original topic. But feel free to continue the arm thread wrestling. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #33 June 19, 2006 Quote You're simply the best .... lalalala... better than all the rest .....lalalala... Tina Turner Quote: "A recent German study reports that on a per capita basis, American citizens contribute to charity nearly seven times as much as their German counterparts and that about six times as many Americans as Germans do volunteer work." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #34 June 19, 2006 QuoteQuote You're simply the best .... lalalala... better than all the rest .....lalalala... Tina Turner Quote: "A recent German study reports that on a per capita basis, American citizens contribute to charity nearly seven times as much as their German counterparts and that about six times as many Americans as Germans do volunteer work." I think there is a lot of confusion in this thread: 1) Yes, looks like Americans give a lot to charity, but it needs to be said that the US spends far less on social programs per GDP/capita then other countries, i.e. in European countries people pay for helping the poor and sick via their taxes instead of privately. You might not like the system, but you have to look at how much is spent in total on helping poor and sick people in total - and then the picture looks quite different. Wealthy people pay far less tax in the US and charitable donations are tax deductable. 2) Need to differentiate between domesic charity/aid and international aid/charity. The US spends far less on development aid to the thirld world measured per capita/GDP then other countries. E.g. the US spends only a fraction on development aid the Scandinavians do.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #35 June 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote You're simply the best .... lalalala... better than all the rest .....lalalala... Tina Turner Quote: "A recent German study reports that on a per capita basis, American citizens contribute to charity nearly seven times as much as their German counterparts and that about six times as many Americans as Germans do volunteer work." I think there is a lot of confusion in this thread: 1) Yes, looks like Americans give a lot to charity, but it needs to be said that the US spends far less on social programs per GDP/capita then other countries, i.e. in European countries people pay for helping the poor and sick via their taxes instead of privately. You might not like the system, but you have to look at how much is spent in total on helping poor and sick people in total - and then the picture looks quite different. Wealthy people pay far less tax in the US and charitable donations are tax deductable. 2) Need to differentiate between domesic charity/aid and international aid/charity. The US spends far less on development aid to the thirld world measured per capita/GDP then other countries. E.g. the US spends only a fraction on development aid the Scandinavians do. YOUR sources??"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #36 June 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteAlso not surprising you attack the person, not the message. But then again we understand your agenda too. When I say 'your agenda' I mean the right wingers. As far as eminent domain goes, had you actually asked me, I would tell you that I detest the recent rulings respecting eminent domain. In all but the most extreme circumstances, I don' t like it. But as your post was about charitable giving, my brain did not make the leap somehow to eminent domain. As far as confiscation goes, I see a distinct differences between taxes used to cultivate a sustainable society and the taking of someone's home to make way for business interests. People the world over have understood for centuries that taxes are necessary, and if handled responsibly, help create a better society for all residents. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't expect roads, a military, education for your kids, police, or many other beneficial services. You can move to a desert island, pay no taxes, and be perfectly happy in your straw hut. Zipp0That's my planI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #37 June 20, 2006 Quote I find myself in agreement with JR. Me too. For once. And Gravitymaster too. LOLI hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #38 June 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote Second direct hit Thats gonna leave a mark.... Oh yeah, a story stating that Americans are generous really hurts! But also, I have read many stories citing other stats that say the opposite. What it comes down to is it's much easier to quantify government aid than private charity. For instance, is all that money getting to the recipient, or is a high percentage paying admin costs of the respective charities? Some charities have admin costs amounting to over 90% of their taken-in donations. And really, the thread was going in the direction of welfare/social programs paid for by taxes vs. paying for these kinds of things with charitable gifts. It would be interesting to compare the overhead associated with charities, compared with the overhead associated with welfare paid for by taxes. I have become very selective about what I donate to after some of the 90% overhead "charities" have been exposed. In addition it may be worth mentioning that not all charitable donations go to "good works". A big donation to the local symphony orchestra or opera counts, but doesn't feed and clothe the poor. Then there are the big donations to colleges that, perchance, shortly thereafter admit your unqualified idiot grandson under a legacy program.Good one. >licks finger> strikes one<I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #39 June 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Second direct hit Thats gonna leave a mark.... Oh yeah, a story stating that Americans are generous really hurts! But also, I have read many stories citing other stats that say the opposite. What it comes down to is it's much easier to quantify government aid than private charity. For instance, is all that money getting to the recipient, or is a high percentage paying admin costs of the respective charities? Some charities have admin costs amounting to over 90% of their taken-in donations. And really, the thread was going in the direction of welfare/social programs paid for by taxes vs. paying for these kinds of things with charitable gifts. It would be interesting to compare the overhead associated with charities, compared with the overhead associated with welfare paid for by taxes. I have become very selective about what I donate to after some of the 90% overhead "charities" have been exposed. In addition it may be worth mentioning that not all charitable donations go to "good works". A big donation to the local symphony orchestra or opera counts, but doesn't feed and clothe the poor. Then there are the big donations to colleges that, perchance, shortly thereafter admit your unqualified idiot grandson under a legacy program.Good one. >licks finger> strikes one< I meet some very rich people who are potential donors to the university. A few years back I met the president of a foundation started by his father, who was a household-name guy who made billions in the footware business. Anyway, the son's entire lifestyle was paid for by the foundation. Anyplace he wanted to go, the foundation jet would take him and a foundation paid-for limo would meet him at the destination. At any vacation spot he could always find some good cause to give a few $k, so it became a paid-for business trip. Charity began at home in this case.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #40 June 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You're simply the best .... lalalala... better than all the rest .....lalalala... Tina Turner Quote: "A recent German study reports that on a per capita basis, American citizens contribute to charity nearly seven times as much as their German counterparts and that about six times as many Americans as Germans do volunteer work." I think there is a lot of confusion in this thread: 1) Yes, looks like Americans give a lot to charity, but it needs to be said that the US spends far less on social programs per GDP/capita then other countries, i.e. in European countries people pay for helping the poor and sick via their taxes instead of privately. You might not like the system, but you have to look at how much is spent in total on helping poor and sick people in total - and then the picture looks quite different. Wealthy people pay far less tax in the US and charitable donations are tax deductable. 2) Need to differentiate between domesic charity/aid and international aid/charity. The US spends far less on development aid to the thirld world measured per capita/GDP then other countries. E.g. the US spends only a fraction on development aid the Scandinavians do. YOUR sources?? Public and available - do some search and you find it.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #41 June 20, 2006 Quote but it needs to be said that the US spends far less on social programs per GDP/capita then other countries, not sure how to read this - are you saying that countries with a publicly paid health care system count those moneys as part of 'charitable contributions'? since I'm not in one of those countries, then does that mean every time I go to the doctor, I'm giving charity to pay for my own health care? based on that logic, then ALL taxable dollars should be considered charity (which isn't that big a stretch). (I'm being cynical here in that a ton of crap - er time - is being argued on whatever made up accounting method each poster wants to use, depending on their goal: 1 make the US look good, 2 make the US look bad, 3 (rare) just discuss the issue, 4 talk about their own country.) ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #42 June 20, 2006 QuoteQuote but it needs to be said that the US spends far less on social programs per GDP/capita then other countries, not sure how to read this - are you saying that countries with a publicly paid health care system count those moneys as part of 'charitable contributions'? since I'm not in one of those countries, then does that mean every time I go to the doctor, I'm giving charity to pay for my own health care? based on that logic, then ALL taxable dollars should be considered charity (which isn't that big a stretch). (I'm being cynical here in that a ton of crap - er time - is being argued on whatever made up accounting method each poster wants to use, depending on their goal: 1 make the US look good, 2 make the US look bad, 3 (rare) just discuss the issue, 4 talk about their own country.) OK - to clarify. A lot if countries spend a lot more tax $ on public health care, social welfare, unemployment benefits, development aid etc. and thus people pay more taxes. At the same time charitable contributions are either not or only limuted tax deductable. So as a result in these countries people do not spend as much on charity - it is seen as more of a job for the government. You might not like the system, but it is a very different system of helping those in need - domestic and internatonal. And in "total" government and private money combined - a lot of countries spend more money on the poor and needy domestic and internationally per capita / as a % of GDP then the US. So taking the US private contributions and using it as the US is "best" or "no.1" is a typical narrow patriotacally blinded view.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #43 June 20, 2006 QuoteSo taking the US private contributions and using it as the US is "best" or "no.1" is a typical narrow patriotacally blinded view. so what's your point? 1 - do you want the US to spend more on stuff you like? 2 - don't care, just glad that charity is happening around the world to some extent by most countries 3 - it really is a pissing contest and you want a particular country to "Win" in the generosity contest - or at least certain countries to lose would be fine 4 - you just don't like a VERY small but highly vocal group spouting off nonsense and callously holding up victory signs 5 - you want to feel like part of the holier than thou crowd and feel a need to 'educate' the ignorant I'm more in line with #2 - but that's from a charity-should-be-voluntary-and-individual position. I know that's not even understandable for some. IMHO - giving is an individual choice, so discussions about which country/group/demographic gives so much seems to be really pointless. What's important is how much Joe gives, or Mikey. Really, if I give nothing, but my 'group' gives more than anyone, why should I take any pride in that. But most posts on these lines are usually a combination of 3 and 5 (and 4, but recognize it's not restricted to just the US citizens). #1 is just the same crowd that has that position 100% of the time on all random issues. Which is a real waste of time. It's mostly fun to see all the different ways people search and twist the accounting methods to make whatever the heck their point is. I agree with you, all this pro and anti american/german/australian stuff (patriotism you called it) is nuts. So it calling it 'typical' too, though. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #44 June 20, 2006 Well, what I was trying to say is that taking some US stats about increase in private charity to say the US is no.1 in "helping" the needy domestically and internationally is a long bow to draw. So yes agree with some of the points you make. Different systems work differently, and the US tradition of paying less in tax (and using less money on government programs) and more money being raised via charitable contributions is different from the way other countries work (where people pay more in tax for these things and spend less in private contributions). Thought this needed to be pointed out.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #45 June 20, 2006 QuoteGiving is great. Giving and letting people know that you give is sooo tacky Is it the giving or the knowledge of the giving that's important? . All I did was post and ask questions, I actually wanted to know Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #46 June 20, 2006 right, I agree systems are different, and each country wants to be evaluated based on their system as it makes them look relatively better - even if it's just a waste of time to track this stuff and publish it. Only the assholes will use the info for whatever agenda they are pushing that day - the rest of us don't care ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #47 June 20, 2006 Quoteright, I agree systems are different, and each country wants to be evaluated based on their system as it makes them look relatively better - even if it's just a waste of time to track this stuff and publish it. Only the assholes will use the info for whatever agenda they are pushing that day - the rest of us don't care I care about abuses, whichever system is in use. Using a charity as a tax-deductible way to keep yourself or kids living the life of luxury, or getting them admitted to an Ivy League school, is a clear abuse. As I mentioned to you last week, don't confuse mere millionaires with the really rich.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #48 June 20, 2006 QuoteI care about abuses, whichever system is in use. Using a charity as a tax-deductible way to keep yourself or kids living the life of luxury, or getting them admitted to an Ivy League school, is a clear abuse. so the belligerant rich goes on a vacation, and during that time, gives $1000 to charity. regardless of the reason, that $1000 (not the trip expenses, or anything else) is charitable contribution and should be treated as such for tax purposes as far as anything other than that, it's a real non sequitor, we all know your position on those with more money than you ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #49 June 20, 2006 QuoteQuoteI care about abuses, whichever system is in use. Using a charity as a tax-deductible way to keep yourself or kids living the life of luxury, or getting them admitted to an Ivy League school, is a clear abuse. so the belligerant rich goes on a vacation, and during that time, gives $1000 to charity. regardless of the reason, that $1000 (not the trip expenses, or anything else) is charitable contribution and should be treated as such for tax purposes Not if the "vacationer" is the president of the foundaton on a "fact-finding" trip. Then the whole trip is paid for by the foundation, which is supported by tax deductible income. as far as anything other than that, it's a real non sequitor, we all know your position on those with more money than you You forget, that by YOUR definition, I am one of the rich. As I said, I don't think you know any of the really rich.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #50 June 20, 2006 Quote YOUR sources?? Public and available - do some search and you find it. Amen brother. I get tired of looking this crap up every time I want to say something that is nearly common knowledge. That, and I get lazy. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Public and available - do some search and you find it.
Amen brother. I get tired of looking this crap up every time I want to say something that is nearly common knowledge. That, and I get lazy.
--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.