Bifurcation: The charity of wealthy conservatives

[JimG]

I don’t know who gives what to charity, or what tax rate is the best. I do know that the Church has historically urged almisgiving and charity upon individuals. I don’t know that it has equally urged income redistribution on governments. Orders of men and women religious have founded hospitals, orphanages, and other charitable organizations. Even today, in my own town as well as others, the work of Catholic Charities in feeding the hungry, protecting abused women, helping the homeless and a host of other activities is constant and largely unnoticed. Catholic Relief Services is one of the most effective of foreign relief organizations.

As was noted above, people are sometimes wary of organized charity because there is a lot of money siphoned off for administration. I get telemarketing calls from a ‘children’s cancer fund.’ When I looked them up, it appears that nearly half of their income goes for administration and advertising. A local firefighters charity hired telemarketers to raise funds, who kept over 80% of the money raised.

Helping the poor whether governmentally or individually, is a good thing. But we should also watch out for the adverse unexpected consequences. The “war on poverty” pushed by LBJ, ultimately seemed not to not only have failed to eliminate poverty, but also helped to disintegrate families.

 

[SoCalRC]

Well, is owning a company or corporation that employs citizens and keeps them from needing charity also considered as charity? No one operates in a vacuum, as the owners benefit, so do the employees. The premise of this thread seems akin to the old freedom vs. license contrast.

It’s not that simple. The principle legal obligation in a publicly traded company is to the stockholders. Which means that the welfare and benefit of the employees, or even society as a whole, is not always compatible.

What always baffles me about ‘wonder market’ thinking is that adoration always seems to wane when someone’ own interests are on the line. For example, why should I pay taxes for a police force? I pay for private security for my home and family. Should the free market decide? People will pay for the protection they want and need…

There always seems to be some clear line in folks heads, but to me it seems like the ultimate seperation of Church and State. Heaven forbid that society take steps to say, effectively pass judgement in Matt 25…

 

[SoCalRC]

I don’t know who gives what to charity, or what tax rate is the best. I do know that the Church has historically urged almisgiving and charity upon individuals.

The Church has never really supported tithing, which was historically a tax to support a religious class. But the Church has never had any reluctance when it comes to indicating that certain moral issues require societal level action to be effective.

I don’t know that it has equally urged income redistribution on governments. Orders of men and women religious have founded hospitals, orphanages, and other charitable organizations. Even today, in my own town as well as others, the work of Catholic Charities in feeding the hungry, protecting abused women, helping the homeless and a host of other activities is constant and largely unnoticed. Catholic Relief Services is one of the most effective of foreign relief organizations.

But Catholic Relief Services receives financial support from multiple governments. As do many Catholic hospitals.

Helping the poor whether governmentally or individually, is a good thing. But we should also watch out for the adverse unexpected consequences. The “war on poverty” pushed by LBJ, ultimately seemed not to not only have failed to eliminate poverty, but also helped to disintegrate families.

Actually, both the new deal and LBJ’s ‘war’ seem to have significantly effected poverty in the US. I’ve never seen any evidence to suggest a correlation to changes in the nuclear family. The biggest changes in those figures seems to stem from the beginning of the 1970’s, perhaps a combination of a dismall economy and wide spread no-fault divorce.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t know who gives what to charity, or what tax rate is the best. I do know that the Church has historically urged almisgiving and charity upon individuals. I don’t know that it has equally urged income redistribution on governments. Orders of men and women religious have founded hospitals, orphanages, and other charitable organizations. Even today, in my own town as well as others, the work of Catholic Charities in feeding the hungry, protecting abused women, helping the homeless and a host of other activities is constant and largely unnoticed. Catholic Relief Services is one of the most effective of foreign relief organizations.

As was noted above, people are sometimes wary of organized charity because there is a lot of money siphoned off for administration. I get telemarketing calls from a ‘children’s cancer fund.’ When I looked them up, it appears that nearly half of their income goes for administration and advertising. A local firefighters charity hired telemarketers to raise funds, who kept over 80% of the money raised.

Helping the poor whether governmentally or individually, is a good thing. But we should also watch out for the adverse unexpected consequences. The “war on poverty” pushed by LBJ, ultimately seemed not to not only have failed to eliminate poverty, but also helped to disintegrate families.

I understand how one can gain merit by freely giving to charity.

I do not understand how anyone can gain merit by having money taken from them by force of law. I do not understand how anyone can gain merit by contributing (forcibly or not) to programs that have the disasterous effect of the Great Society.

 

[ribozyme]

I understand how one can gain merit by freely giving to charity.

I do not understand how anyone can gain merit by having money taken from them by force of law. I do not understand how anyone can gain merit by contributing (forcibly or not) to programs that have the disasterous effect of the Great Society.

I’ll say it before and I will say it again:

It seems that a Pareto optimal environment cannot serve the poor adequately. I do not want to hear about the virtues of charity; I am only interested whether it will work to serve the poor. Anyone want to submit a paper to the Economic Policy Institute that says that charity can serve the needs to the poor and government spending is unnecessary?

Charity is virtuous, redistribution is utilitarian.

Do you have any evidence that charity will serve the needs of the poor adequately?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually, both the new deal and LBJ’s ‘war’ seem to have significantly effected poverty in the US.

Poverty declined in the US because of the vast industrial efforts of WWII gave jobs to millions – it was the ultimate expression of Hoover’s “Trickle Down” theory.

The “War on Poverty” brought the decline in poverty to a halt, and it has bounced around the same level ever since.

I’ve never seen any evidence to suggest a correlation to changes in the nuclear family.

You never heard of the “Man in the house” rule, where a woman living with a man in the house couldn’t draw welfare?

The biggest changes in those figures seems to stem from the beginning of the 1970’s, perhaps a combination of a dismall economy and wide spread no-fault divorce.

And the Great Society programs kicking in.

 

[SoCalRC]

There are caps on how much you can claim as a deduction from your income on your tax return.

So, the so-called tax deduction only works for lower-middle and middle-class wage earners.

I’d have to call my accountant to confirm, but the last time I read IRS publications 78 and 526 it was 20/30/50. Basically no limits on giving up to 20% of adjusted gross income. Then limits of 20, 30, or 50% depending on what you are giving and who you are giving it to.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’ll say it before and I will say it again:

And it makes as much sense as the first time you said it – which is to say, none at all.

Do you have any evidence that charity will serve the needs of the poor adequately?

Yep – along with evidence that government programs halted the decline of poverty in this country and institutionalized an underclass of poorly-educated people raised in single-parent homes.

 

[SoCalRC]

You never heard of the “Man in the house” rule, where a woman living with a man in the house couldn’t draw welfare?

Of course, I’ve just never seen any evidence to suggest that it had a measurable impact on marriage or cohabitation. But, given that Arkansas has one of the worst divorce rates in the nation, perhaps you know something we don’t.

And the Great Society programs kicking in.

So the fact that we all kicked in and got you electricity is why you don’t stay together? I had other suspicians.

WW-II is a valid point, we were pretty much the only industrialized society left unbombed. But prosperity was greatly enhanced by the massive GI bill, which helped drive a new middle class.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Of course, I’ve just never seen any evidence to suggest that it had a measurable impact on marriage or cohabitation.

Then you haven’t looked.

But, given that Arkansas has one of the worst divorce rates in the nation, perhaps you know something we don’t.

My, aren’t we nasty and bigoted against hillbillies this morning!

So the fact that we all kicked in and got you electricity is why you don’t stay together? I had other suspicians.

More bigotry and bad history – Arkansas had electricity, even in the hinterland, long before LBJ’s time.

WW-II is a valid point, we were pretty much the only industrialized society left unbombed. But prosperity was greatly enhanced by the massive GI bill, which helped drive a new middle class.

Yes, education is a legitimate and effective government responsibility. Too bad we’ve stopped doing it – especially for the children of the poor.

 

[SoCalRC]

Then you haven’t looked.

I’m not the one asserting cause and effect. Perhaps if you provided some evidence to support your ideas?

My, aren’t we nasty and bigoted against hillbillies this morning!

I can’t help the facts. Why is it bigoted to piont them out? You have a horrific divorce rate, so perhaps you know something we don’t.

More bigotry and bad history – Arkansas had electricity, even in the hinterland, long before LBJ’s time.

Uh, that was the point. You were mocking the “Great Society”, so I pointed out an even more massive expenditure under the “New Deal” just a few decades before:

encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2162

Did you get confused and think that the good folks of Arkansas had made that massive investment on their own?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m not the one asserting cause and effect. Perhaps if you provided some evidence to support your ideas?

Take a look – the evidence is there, plain as the nose on your face.

I can’t help the facts. Why is it bigoted to piont them out? You have a horrific divorce rate, so perhaps you know something we don’t.

Oh, come on! You made a bigoted remark, and what’s more, you meant it to be bigoted.

You’ve accused me from everything from public mopery to barrantry at sea, but at least I never attacked you or your state in such a bigoted manner.

Shame on you!

Uh, that was the point. You were mocking the “Great Society”, so I pointed out an even more massive expenditure under the “New Deal” just a few decades before:

encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=2162

Did you get confused and think that the good folks of Arkansas had made that massive investment on their own?

Actually, we did – the REA only handled a part of the state. Arkansas Power and Light (now Entergy) did most of it.

In the ice storm of '57, we lived about ten miles from the boundary between REA and AP&L. When the power went out for over a week, guess who drove trucks around with generators, powering people’s freezers, so they wouldn’t loose all their food? (Hint: it wasn’t REA!)

Guess which grid came back on line first, and which one was two weeks later?

 

[ribozyme]

Yep – along with evidence that government programs halted the decline of poverty in this country and institutionalized an underclass of poorly-educated people raised in single-parent homes.
…
Yes, education is a legitimate and effective government responsibility. Too bad we’ve stopped doing it – especially for the children of the poor.

I suppose some attacks on the Great Society programs can be traced to a book called *Losing Ground *written by Charles Murray. I didn’t read it, but I read one of his other books that implied education would not be solution to the problem. It is named after the shape of a rather well -known probability density function.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I suppose some attacks on the Great Society programs can be traced to a book called *Losing Ground *written by Charles Murray. I didn’t read it, but I read one of his other books that implied education would not be solution to the problem. It is named after the shape of a rather well -known probability density function.

I didn’t read it, either, so it would be a mistake to attribute my comments to that book.

 

[vern_humphrey]

eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?nfpb=true&&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED469527&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED469527

This study used data from the first and last waves of the 1996 U.S. Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation to compare the characteristics and wellbeing of low-income, single parent families before and after passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), noting the characteristics and wellbeing of low-income, single parent families headed by females in the post-PRWORA period. Results indicated that while the participation of many low-income single parents in the labor market substantially increased following implementation of welfare reform, millions of families remained in poverty, with their employment concentrated in low-wage occupations and industries (particularly among single mothers). Three years after passage of the PRWORA, although the population of low-income single parents was still predominantly female, there were significant changes in other key characteristics. Specifically, fewer welfare recipients were white, fewer had some college education, and more were concentrated in urban areas. The study concluded that poverty reduction should be the primary purpose of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. (SM)

Wow! And a brass band played “Whoda Thunkit!”

cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html

Last year, the Maryland NAACP released a report concluding that “the ready access to a lifetime of welfare and free social service programs is a major contributory factor to the crime problems we face today.”(1) Their conclusion appears to be confirmed by academic research. For example, research by Dr. June O’Neill’s and Anne Hill for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services showed that a 50 percent increase in the monthly value of combined AFDC and food stamp benefits led to a 117 percent increase in the crime rate among young black men.(2)

Gee, even the NAACP sees a correlation between the problems of the poor and welfare!

publicpolicy.umd.edu/puaf650-Fullinwider/handouts-Responsibility-Welfare%20Reform%20Act.htm

The Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Marriage is the foundation of a successful society.
(2) Marriage is an essential institution of a successful society which promotes the interests of children.
(3) Promotion of responsible fatherhood and motherhood is integral to successful child rearing and the well-being of children.
(4) In 1992, only 54 percent of single-parent families with children had a child support order established and, of that 54 percent, only about one-half received the full amount due. Of the cases enforced through the public child support enforcement system, only 18 percent of the caseload has a collection.
(5) The number of individuals receiving aid to families with dependent children (in this section referred to as `AFDC’) has more than tripled since 1965. More than two-thirds of these recipients are children. Eighty-nine percent of children receiving AFDC benefits now live in homes in which no father is present.

Now all they have to do is get off their butts and do something to fix the mess they created.

 

[ribozyme]

No, I wasn’t questioning whether the welfare programs had an unexpected perverse incentive to keep people mired in poverty. I will agree that it did. I am questioning whether your proposed remedy will work.

I suppose some attacks on the Great Society programs can be traced to a book called Losing Ground written by Charles Murray. I didn’t read it, but I read one of his other books that implied education would not be solution to the problem. It is named after the shape of a rather well -known probability density function.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No, I wasn’t questioning whether the welfare programs had an unexpected perverse incentive to keep people mired in poverty. I will agree that it did. I am questioning whether your proposed remedy will work.

So we agree – welfare programs have had an unexpected perverse incentive to keep people mired in poverty.

My proposed remedy is education. To say education will not work is close to saying the poor are somehow uneducable.

An excellent book that showed the negative impact of social engineering is The Federal Bulldozer: A Critical Analysis of Urban Renewal, 1942-1962, by Martin Anderson. This was a very early study showing the negative impact of one key “social engineering” program, even before the Great Society.

We can’t say we weren’t warned.

 

[JimG]

The Church has never really supported tithing, which was historically a tax to support a religious class. But the Church has never had any reluctance when it comes to indicating that certain moral issues require societal level action to be effective.

The Church has never supported tithing? That’s not the case in my parish, where percentage giving is encouraged; it’s called stewardship. And the parish itself gives 10% of its income to charity.

 

[ribozyme]

So we agree – welfare programs have had an unexpected perverse incentive to keep people mired in poverty.

My proposed remedy is education. To say education will not work is close to saying the poor are somehow uneducable.

Yes, the past perfect is the correct tense, not the preterite for that sentence.

I will also say that equality of opportunity will NOT yield equality of outcome. That is why I doubt equal opportunity in education will work to alleviate poverty and inequality significantly.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes, the past perfect is the correct tense, not the simple past for that sentence.

Ahh, so what failed so badly in the past – that which actually made things worse – will work in the future?

I will also say that equality of opportunity will NOT yield equality of outcome. That is why I doubt equal opportunity in education will work to alleviate poverty and inequality significantly.

Now there are two priceless sentences!!

Who says “equality of outcome” is possible, or even desirable? If it were, we’d all be NBA basketball players, rock stars and TV game show hosts, now wouldn’t we?

But education** will** alleviate poverty significantly – people with jobs are a giant stride above people who live on welfare. Indeed, I would think everyone would be for educating as many people as possible, so as to transform consumers of public assistance to contributors to the common good.