Ethicist Peter Singer has an interesting article in the New York Times magazine on charitable giving. It's largely a discussion of "how much should one give?" and makes the argument that it is perfectly defensible, on moral grounds, to tax the rich more heavily than the poor and to expect them to donate more.
I've been looking for an article like this for some time. I'm nearing 40, and my wife went back to work this year. So we're starting to hit that point in midlife where our discretionary income is high enough to make serious charitable giving a possibility. Up until now our monetary donations have been small and irregular — generally less than $1,000 a year. Most of our charity has been about deeds: donating blood, helping neighbors, sending our excess belongings to nonprofits rather than throwing them out or holding a garage sale.
But now we're starting to think about charity in a more organized way, and Singer's article offered some thought-provoking ways to think about it.
Some of his more interesting observations:
GIVERS
Of the top four charitable givers in United States history, three were/are atheists or agnostic: Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Andrew Carnegie (John D. Rockefeller, the fourth member of the group, was a Baptist). Further, Buffett's charitable pledges — about $37 billion — more than double that of Carnegie and Rockefeller put together — after accounting for inflation. Bill Gates' donations are nearly as large: about $30 billion.
That says nothing, of course, about whether believers or nonbelievers as a group are more generous. But it's food for thought, as well as demonstrating the scale of modern philanthropy.
SOCIAL CAPITAL
A lot of people argue that the rich owe much of their wealth to the society that helps them create it, but I've never seen the argument laid out in detail. Singer does. He cites Nobel-winning economist Herbert Simon, who estimates that social capital — the prevailing social, governmental, and economic conditions — accounts for about 90 percent of what people earn in wealthy societies like ours. "On moral grounds," Simon adds, "we could argue for a flat income tax of 90 percent." Simon notes that that would be economically disastrous, but there's nothing unethical with taxing more heavily those who can most afford to pay.
Article comments
1 - Baronius
I call foul. (Here, fowl fowl fowl!) You talk about the four top givers in absolute terms. But then you talk about the US falling short of Denmark in relative terms.
You note that the three top givers are agnostics/atheists (except that Bill Gates wasn't doing much before he got married to a Christian gal and founded the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation). But on the average in the US, religious individuals give about 4x as much of their income as non-religious.
As for your use of private+government charity levels, do you feel that they are ethically interchangable? It seems to me that giving your own money is far more meaningful than having the government take everyone's money.
2 - Arch Conservative
Ah....sweet sweet income redistribution.
Perhaps you and your NYT times cronies would be better speading this horseshit on Pravda than on BC.
3 - Sean Aqui
Baronius: I explicitly noted that the Gates/Buffett/Rockefeller factoid doesn't have any larger meaning. I just thought it was interesting. I did not intend to tie it to the point about U.S. giving compared to other countries.
Are private and public philanthropy the same? Nope. But combined they do represent our total aid to the rest of the world. And that total is not as generous as might be expected from the richest country on the planet.
Arch: Other than noting that a progressive tax structure is ethical and not "stealing from the rich", I make no mention of coercion or any other form of wealth distribution. The article is about the ethics of giving and how much we SHOULD give, not how much people will be made to give.
The debate has really become shriveled if suggesting we don't give as much as we should becomes advocating "income redistribution". Though I suppose if charity can be equated to socialism, then rock-ribbed conservatives can ignore charity and feel smug about it.
4 - Mooja
Whatever you say about foreign aid you must realize the overwhelming fact that the US dwarfs all other nations in total foreign aid. Before you start throwing out GDP numbers let me give you an example:
While charitable giving may be an ethical and moral obligation I believe you are even more obligated to help yourself.
Take two U.S. teens that grow up in the same American town to similar middle-income parents. The first teen graduates high school and puts himself though college by working and borrowing from federal loans. He studies for 10 years and eventually graduates with a PhD in finance. In five more years he’s grossing $2 million a year as a quantitative analyst on Wall St. He pays $560,000 per year in state and federal taxes. He also gives about $70,000 per year to various charities and non-profit organizations or about 5% of his net pay. The second teen decides high school cuts in on his hanging-out time and drops out. After a few moths of partying he gets a job at the local factory so he can afford that new Camaro he’s had his eye on. Teen two lives with his parents till he’s 25 at which time he gets his girlfriend pregnant. 10 years later he’s living from paycheck to paycheck in a two-bedroom appt with 3 kids on $30K a year. He pays $6000/yr in state and local taxes. His wife puts $20 a week in the church pan as it’s passed around totaling $1,040 in yearly charitable giving or 3% of their net pay.
The U.S. views the first teen as an evil, big business, millionaire who must be held responsible for pledging not only a greater total amount but also a greater percentage of his income to the welfare of the nation and other nations. The U.S. views the second teen in the class of victims who cannot be held responsible for footing the bills this nation incurs since his salary dwarfs in comparison to the first teen.
Which of these two people have failed their ethical and moral obligations?
Why don’t other countries strive to improve their condition such that they are able to contribute as much in total dollars to foreign aid as does the US?
Also why is it that however much charitable giving you do other people still feel it's their right to decide how much you should be giving? This is especially onerous when it comes to levying tax as a way to generate welfare and charity. This is nothing more than legalized theft.
5 - Baronius
Well, technically, giving is income redistribution.
6 - Sean Aqui
Mooja: You're correct about absolute dollars of aid, but that's sort of irrelevant. Never mind that much of our aid is targeted to a few specific places: Egypt, Israel and Iraq/Afghanistan. The larger point is that we account for a quarter of global GDP; should we be proud and satisfied that our charitable giving falls short of a 25 percent share?
In fact, it doesn't even come close.
The United States' foreign aid roughly matches that of Japan, Britain and Canada combined. They do it with 220 million people and a combined GDP of $6.5 trillion. We get there with 300 million people and a GDP of $11.8 trillion.
On a GDP basis, we're about half as generous as they are. That's pitiful, IMO.
Agreed that we have an obligation to help our own countrymen first. But in your highly contrived example, the guy making $30,000 is far better off than people across the ocean living on a dollar a day, or dying of starvation and preventable disease. Even if you regard the poor in the United States as deserving victims of their own sloth, it doesn't justify ignoring the truly needy around the globe.
Baronius: Technically, yes. But not in the "you socialist" sense that term is usually used in.
7 - RedTard
Maybe the needy should get out of line for handouts and start working on their economy. Think about it. If the US and others give them food, clothing, shelter, and medical care then we take away the basic industries of farming, constructions, healthcare, and textiles. They can't make a living, they can't compete with free goods and services. The cycle continues, thanks for contributing!
8 - RedTard
The old saying should be:
Teach a man to fish and feed him for life. Give a man a fish and ensure he never picks up a fishing pole for himself.
9 - Zedd
RedTard
Teaching a man to fish IS charity. That is what most NGOs and Non Profits do.
Sometimes there are no fish and the river is dry.
That is when just giving to save your fellow man comes in.
Its nice for you though that that didnt even cross your mind (that sometimes the river is just DRY). You must be BLESSED.
10 - Zedd
Baronius
Buffet and Gates are not the U.S. government. The writer was clear on the distiction between individuals (which he named) and the U.S. as a nation state.
We have a poor track record. Many people think that we are the most generous but we really aren't. That is why the UN was fed up during the Tsunami because of our habit of telling everyone what to do and not giving our fair share.
It seems that our calling card is our weaponry not our generosity. Hence the "bully" reputation.
Research it.
11 - Mooja
It appears that my point was lost so I’ll be more succinct. Other nations need to step up and strive to match U.S. contributions in total dollars. They should do this not by giving more through the as-a-percent-of-GDP route but by HELPING THEMSELVES. They should strive to improve their GDP. Strive to be as successful as the US.
Absolute dollars are NOT “sort of irrelevant”. If the world had to choose between accepting donations from Denmark or the US which would they choose? (hint not Denmark)
A rising tide floats all boats. Though hard work and much effort the US has brought about advances in technology and medicine which then propagates across the globe. The US, through its own success, is the single biggest contributor to human prosperity on Earth.
And we should be made to feel shame for this by whom? Maybe France with their 35 hour work week and mandatory 7 weeks/yr paid vacation? Maybe Germany with their 10% unemployment? France and Germany should do better to help themselves help the world.
12 - Baronius
Sean, sorry if I've been stirring the pot a little too much. It's a good article, and it raised a lot of points. (I'm still miffed about the agnostic bit, but it'll pass.) I find the topic so interesting, and it's obviously important. So here I go again, stirring the pot.
You said that Canada, England, and Japan together match US charity. But the US picked up one gigantic bar tab for all three of your example countries, to varying degrees, for about 50 years. There are some externalities that we don't get much credit for. Also, when the biggest guys in the world promote trade, it helps establish standards for trade between all countries. Then there's the internet, another American contribution.
Externalities are next to impossible to measure. They can cut both ways: the man who developed nitrogen extraction is responsible for worldwide agricultural improvements, and chemical warfare. The internet has provided the Arab world with access to information and pornography; no wonder they don't trust our agenda.
But just on a basic level, when a kid wants a slightly smaller iPod for $300 more, there's a problem. No argument about that.
13 - Zedd
Mooja sez:
They should strive to improve their GDP. Strive to be as successful as the US.
Wow why didnt THEY think of that. You are such an American. Its sort of cute but scary too. Have you ever been anywhere else? I'm just trying to understand what goes on?
Mooja Sez: The US, through its own success, is the single biggest contributor to human prosperity on Earth.
Yep especially our own prosperity. Boy I bet the people in Chad are greatful for my purchasing a new Fendi bag! Oh boy when my neigbor got that Hummer last month, they must have been over joyed. That 9 year old kid who has to hunt rats to feed his family MUST be clicking his heals over my kids new Nintendo.
?????? cooo cooo. Probably not his fault. Some insane business professor or Rush.
14 - Zedd
Heck we are so caring and generous that we demanded that poor countries like Lesotho continue to pay their UN dues when we wouldn't pay ours but insisted on sitting on the special council.
15 - Zedd
Sean,
Bravo!! Well done and as usual, well thought through.
16 - Mooja
Zedd, I pity you that harbor such hate and contempt for your own country.
17 - STM
Mooja, it's just not true that the US has been the single biggest contributor to human prosperity. It might have been the single biggest contributor to American prosperity, and there is the not very small matter of the US contribution to the Allied cause in WWII, and its magnanimity in victory which brought freedom and well being to the West, but others were just as heavily involved in that cause.
Your main Allies, Britain and its Empire/dominions, suffered a casualty rate close to twice that of the US. The rate of military deaths (take note, Baronius, in regard to the so-called bar tab to England) was 100,000 more just for Britain alone - a country of just 50 or so million at the time compared to the US's 400m.
On those figures alone, there's grounds for an argument that they might have made the major contribution in that war - although they'd probably be too polite to point it out to you.
But with kind of blinkered, ill-informed attitudes I'm reading here, it's no wonder the rest of us get pissed off with you sometimes.
There are plenty of other countries with as many or more rights for their citizens, similar or better overall living standards and who make bigger contributions around the world per capita than the US. Many also have a much fairer distribution of wealth - free medical care for everyone is a really good starter on that score, and most civilised western nations have it.
Try not to look at the world through purely Amero-centric eyes ... it's what annoys people about America. It's also the only country that seemingly won't take off the blinkers.
Zedd is right about the reputation but I don't agree that America is a bully. I believe the opposite. I love Americans for what they are - good natured, good-hearted people - but I do believe a lot of Americans don't have a clue about what goes on outside their own country.
I make that judgment from the perspective of having lived and worked there, and in other places around the world, so I have some personal experience to back up my views.
18 - Ben Yoskovitz
Recently I've seen a few programs on TV that talked about the "working poor" who give the most as a percentage of their salaries, while the middle class gives the least. Interesting stuff.
I think we can probably all give a bit more. And there are other ways to "donate" -- through Kiva.org for example, where you give microloans (versus donations).
19 - Zedd
Mooja
Where did you get that I hate America?
If my sister is a horrible parent and on drugs, my saying that she is a horrible parent and a drug addict, does not mean that I hate her.
Ignoring the truth does not make you patriotic.
If you love America, you want her to be better.
20 - Zedd
SMT
You are right, Americans for the most part are kind and generous. Most don't know, however what their government does in their name.
We are also not as exposed to anyone or anything that goes on outside of our boarders.
Many Americans are lulled by the image of America which was propogated by movies after WWII (John Wayne, etc).
If you were here in this country, you would suprised how much Americans talk about their goodness, to themselves. Like an insecure, uncertain person, Americans continuously have internal pep rallies about themselves, within their own confines. Its odd. I have lived in other countries and have traveled a lot. I have never seen anything like it anywhere. We talk about our Americanness and greatness a lot. We are also very sensative about anyone who doesnt say that we are great.
Its as if we don't really believe we are great..
I wonder what attacks i'm going to get for saying this???
21 - STM
Zedd: You are absolutely right about the bragging. When I was a kid, I lived in the middle east and of course, many of our friends were Americans.
Having been exposed over a long period of time, I once asked my Dad why Americans brag so much about America. I even had an argument with a boy who is now a good friend about the nationality of the fictional James Bond, as he insisted the character was American. (the reason: he didn't think a glamourous action character with that level of sophistication and gadgetry could possibly be anything but American. He has since shown contrition).
My father was in the British Army and was stationed for some years in Germany in the aftermath of WWII and so worked with lots of Americans, whom he liked.
He told me not to worry about the bragging, said they couldn't help it, and that I'd get used to it soon enough! "It's just the way they are son, and nothing you say or do will change it, so just cop it on the chin."
It's been good advice, as there is more to like about America and Americans than there is to dislike.
Mostly, anyhow. Still have to watch all that big-noting, though
22 - nugget
Americans continuously have internal pep rallies about themselves
lol.
23 - Zedd
SMT
I hear you but bragging is not respectable. It is a way to try and gain respect but it only renders one looking poor, sad, needy, and badly socialized.
When it is compounded with constant displays of brawn and millitary threats, then it just becomes plane old bullying. That conclusion would be reached in any playground accross the globe. - Hence the reputation
However what I hear you saying is that the brovado is due to mass dellusion.
I say its a combination of it all. None of it intentional. We've been PR-ed into it.