Sure Is Quiet in Here

After our heated discussions yesterday on Obama's "spread the wealth around" comment and who pays for what in the US, I thought we'd have a whole host of people today wanting to comment on how to address poverty and the issues around giving. After all, much of the thinking yesterday was centered around how we can help those less fortunate, and the topic of giving was mentioned as a potential part of the solution. And yet no one seems excited about talking about giving today (based on the handful of comments they each have so far.)

Hmmmmm. Maybe no one else sees a connection? Maybe you're tired from yesterday? Maybe no one cares?

It's just interesting to me that we can be so spirited around how someone else (other than ourselves) can or can't pay for something that "the government" deems we need to address, but people are much less excited about themselves personally giving to address those same issues.

Comments

[pink panther]

Maybe people put their ideas in their own blogs? It is "blog action day."

The gist of my blog entry was to watch out. Poverty is a big business. When you buy those little ghosts, sneakers, or Christmas trees for $1 and they tape them to the wall ... where is that cash going? One time K-Mart was doing this and I checked out the organization. The woman running it made half a million dollars a year! Must be nice, sitting back and collecting $1 here, and $1 there, and getting paid such an outrageous amount. Don't give on impulse, but check things out in as much detail as possible. Some people have made good lives for themselves in the name of fighting poverty. I am not saying don't give, but to check it out first. Leeches like this suck up charity dollars better spent elsewhere.

[FMF]

Pink --

Ha! They sure weren't posting on their own blogs yesterday! ;-)

[anna]

I don't really like to go into details about my giving, but I'll say that it has slightly increased.

[JimL]

Despite all the years of government spending on poverty programs, it appears that we have yet to make a dent in solving the problem. Are we really doing much of a service by merely pumping in more money, when instead, we should be looking at other options. I know one idea thrown out by FMF before was to provide/mandate some classes in financial education. I, for one, would be much more interested in solution based programs to where we, as taxpayers, can see if our money is being spent properly. If this was the case, I think many would have less concerns about the talk around more increasing taxes.

[Kevin M]

Sadly, helping people isn't as hot-button a topic as taxes or government. Thanks for providing the links to the charities you support and following up on yesterday's comments though.

[Emily]

I think the reason that you got so many comments yesterday is because you touched in a controversial issue. There are two schools of thought on taxes and a lot of opinions out there. I don't think anyone can dispute the importance of helping to alleviate poverty, which is why you did not get the kind of passionate responses you got yesterday. Talk about abortion or gay rights issues tomorrow and I guarantee that you will double the responses you got in your tax post.

[Solarmist]

I think a lot of it comes down to the hierarchy of needs. Only people when all the lower needs have been completely fulfilled does it even occur to people to give, unless you were raised in an environment that concentrated on giving as a need.

Since a majority of Americans live from paycheck to paycheck they don't see their needs being fulfilled enough to give making charitable contributions a priority. Unfortunately I speak from personal experience. I would like to give, but I don't feel that I can afford it. I'm still trying to get my budget working so I can get out of debt.

That's why I support government run programs. Even though they are run badly they accomplish a lot of their basic goals. For example, if we didn't have public schools I honestly believe that a large percentage of people wouldn't even have an elementary school education. These programs only exist because they are funded through taxes making the giving mandatory.

I do agree that the tax system is screwed up and it needs a major overhaul, but it works (again only to a minimum level, but it works). I definitely don't think taxing everyone the same would work, but I think doing it as a proportion of income or net worth would work. So, I guess I do support a MINIMUM redistribution of wealth.

I may be misunderstanding your comment the other day, but I can't believe you could even think of proposing that everyone pay the same just because everyone has the same access to government programs. The main people who need them (and use them) are the ones least likely to be able to afford them.

The way I see taxes (well, the ones that go towards social programs) is providing everyone with a minimum level of benefits as rights (Such as schooling, food stamps, subsidized housing, medical care, or other basic needs) because society has not been able work out a solution. I know there's plenty of good ideas out there, but no one's been able to get any of them working to the level where they would need to be.

[FMF]

Emily --

Yikes! I'll avoid those topics, thank you! ;-)

[FMF]

Solarmist --

I don't know enough about issues like a national sales tax to say I do or don't support a given level of taxation by differing income levels. My comment about us all getting the same services and yet some paying and some not was more to add a different perspective to an issue where it's almost always assumed that "the rich" will automatically pay for everything.

In addition, the list of "minimum rights" seems to be growing rapidly. Just like the average American consumer, collectively we spemd way more than we earn and we want even more!

[Solarmist]

Yes, I do agree that the list of "minimum rights" is growing, but I think that is a natural evolution of society. The USA is one of the most conservative first-world countries, but decade after decade we slowly move to the left (I'm not going to comment about if that's good or bad).

And I think that as the standard of living increase more and more things are seen as rights rather than luxuries. I think if you look at any developing country that is the case though.

I do agree with you that it is kind of assumed that "the rich" will pay and I don't agree with that, so there's something seriously wrong with the tax system in that sense.

As far as the US government spending way more than we earn I honestly don't think that, that mainly or even significantly comes from the social programs we've implemented. There are certainly things that can be done to stream line it though and reduce the cost.

I don't think its fair to compare government to an individual though. A group will never behave like an individual. I think we need to develop the theory of group politics/behavior more in order understand ways to improve the efficiency of the group.

Now that I've gotten off topic so much I think I'll stop.

[Mark]

The rich do need to pay more taxes than they have been for the past eight years. The middle class needs to pay less, and the poor need to keep everything they can. Call it weath re-distribution, but it's something that's overdue in this economy. You might have a fairer system if everyone paid the same percent, or if all deductions and credits were eliminated, but it's never going to happen. All I'm expecting from the next President is an overhaul of the tax brackets that gives more back to the people that spend the most as a percentage of their income.

[Noah]

FMF (by the way, do we know your first name? I do like to refer to people by name) since you directed me here:

A rarely discussed topic on government actions is the societal shaping it creates. I would argue that government activity specifically creates a culture that perpetuates their action. We all know the government isn't perfect, but almost all of us in our heart of hearts believe the government is not wholly corrupt and they work to do the right thing. Young people especially have more regard for the higher-ups. I believe when the government actively engages in a task, that viewpoint trickles down to the populace. As such, I am totally for the government being active in giving to the poor, to lead the way and encourage others to do the same.

Some may argue that people will give -less- because the government is doing it for them, but in my experience people don't really think that way. When the government, at any level, says this is what we're doing and this is why we're doing it, if it's a good cause people will support it and try to live according to that ideal.

[FMF]

Noah --

My first name is "F". ;-)

Seriously, I write under "FMF", so feel free to call me that.

A good book on this topic is Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.

The author, Arthur Brooks, finds out that the people who advocate taxing the rich to solve the problems of poverty, etc. usually do not give as much to charity as those who advocate individual efforts. This holds true even among those with higher incomes.

He finds that conservatives also give more to non-religious charities than liberals as well.

And by the way, this isn't some rant from someone on the religious right.

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Really-Cares-Compassionate-Conservatism/dp/B000WCTRPA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1224122924&sr=8-1

[anna]

Taxing the rich specifically, or just taxing overall? Because my understanding was that places that have high tax rates (overseas countries) tend to have less in giving than other places, because the idea is that it's the government's role to care for the needy. In places where taxes are lower (I'd include the US*,) the idea is that the government has a limited responsibility. But that is a different statement than saying "tax the rich instead of the lower classes."

[Sarah]

It's two different strategies for dealing with poverty. I would actually be perfectly happy in a world where I paid higher taxes that relieved poverty enough that I didn't feel it was necessary to make private charitable donations. I know the concept throws some people into a frenzy, and on a practical level I can appreciate the arguments for a more mixed system, I really can. But on the purely theoretical level it doesn't bother me much.

Contrary to what Sarah Palin says, I think paying your taxes is patriotic. But then, I also think taking care of our wounded soldiers, keeping our air and water clean, and educating the next generation is patriotic, and unlike Sarah Palin, I've grasped that you need to pay taxes in order to be able to afford to do these things.