Republicans give WAY more to charities per capita. I live in high wealth upper class liberal territory and my extended family lives in low wealth working class MAGA territory, and although I care for many people that I call friends where I live, in my assessment of the people in both of these tribes, what I see is a general trait of grea…
Republicans give WAY more to charities per capita. I live in high wealth upper class liberal territory and my extended family lives in low wealth working class MAGA territory, and although I care for many people that I call friends where I live, in my assessment of the people in both of these tribes, what I see is a general trait of great selfishness in the high wealth upper class liberal territory.
While the people in MAGA territory will give in ways that actually hurts them in order to help others, the people in liberal territory only virtue signal charity that does not result in any material adverse impacts to their own lifestyle.
There is probably something economic-class related to this... people that have less are less clutching to what they have, and people that have more have been determined to be more likely to crave retention of what they have, and to have a greater desire to get more.
However, the problem isn't this... it is the inauthenticity of Democrat virtue. I will give you just one example of many. Where I live, a university town where 80% voted for Kamala Harris, the population passed an ordinance that the majority had to approve any peripheral development project that would be annexed to the city. Since that ordinance was passed, in addition to the environmental impact lawsuits this wealthy NIMBY group throws out to kill every project, even infill, the voters have rejected every peripheral development project for the last 30 years. The result has been sky high housing costs as the supply does not keep up with demand, and the demographic problem of fewer young professionals and families living here. Homelessness has exploded, too low tax revenue leading to roads and parks not being maintained, programs cut... but the wealthy liberal property owners have managed to secure their own wealth in real estate values... while claiming they are affordable housing advocates donating their time to non-profits that advocate tax increases to "help" the homeless.
Well Frank, you might be surprised to learn that people in lower income tiers still overwhelmingly lean Democrat. People still get more Republican the more money they earn, until you get to around three times the median income, and then it starts to lean Democrat again.
And while we all probably agree that rich people have their hypocrisies and annoyances, it would hardly be fair to differentiate that by political party. After all, at least Democrats vote for policies that benefit the poor and working class.
In fact, aside from the fact that you're exaggerating the difference between charitable giving levels, the fact that Democrats vote for higher taxes—including their own—is one of the complications which render these statistics misleading. Those higher taxes generally do more good than private charitable action. According to one study on the charitable giving gap:
------------
"Those in favor of lower taxes have argued that individuals are more capable than the government of allocating money to important causes, including people in need of assistance. But the study found that was not true. Donations do not match government assistance, and without tax money, social services are not funded as robustly.
“The evidence shows that private philanthropy can’t compensate for the loss of government provision,” Dr. Nesbit said. “It’s not equal. What government can put into these things is so much more than what we see through private philanthropy.”
------------
That study emphasized that while they could measure the giving levels, they couldn't make any determinations about where the money went or how it was used. Another study, though, concluded that the distinction was almost entirely accounted for by a rather unsurprising factor—church donations:
------------
"Republicans are not only more likely to attend church than Democrats, but church attendance – among Democrats and Republicans alike – is strongly associated with charitable giving. Gaps in giving, therefore, are linked to differences in the social composition of the parties, in which the average Republican is more religious than the average Democrat. Moreover, the overall giving gap emerges because Republicans donate more to their own religious congregations, rather than nationally active religious charities. Republicans and Democrats give roughly equal amounts to religious organisations aside from their own congregations, and we also find some evidence that Democrats donate more to non-religious organisations than Republicans. In other words, the baseline difference in charitable giving emerges because Republicans are more religious than Democrats, and religious people donate generously to their religious congregations."
------------
You see, anything that you give to a tax-exempt charity organization can be classified as "charitable giving". When I was a young Catholic school boy, my parents dropped an envelope into the collection plate each week, part of which went to reductions in my tuition.
Evangelicals, in particular, engage in a practice known to the Biblically familiar as tithing—giving a certain percentage of your income automatically to the church. And if you've ever seen any of these modern-day mega-churches run by celebrity-seeking, wealth-worshipping Evangelical pastors (in addition to the ones we witnessed on TV growing up in the golden age of televangelism), well, let's just say I don't think you need to be incredibly cynical to feel dubious about where all of that money ends up going, and whom it ends up helping.
Oh, my. Are you an undergraduate or graduate student? This is an excerpt from which “paper” you are writing, hoping to get high marks in which subject?
Sorry if you think I sound too academic, but I was done with grad school over half my life ago. These are my spontaneous thoughts plus a few minutes of research.
I could be more colorful, but I have a history with Frank so I'm trying to be nicer. But this is generally representative of my writing style.
🤯 No, I don’t think you “sound too academic.” And I don’t care about your “writing style.” Your response seems very self-concerned/self-conscious. Introspection can gift you with self-awareness: try it some time.
"After all, at least Democrats vote for policies that benefit the poor and working class."
There is no evidence that Democrats vote for policies that benefit the poor and working class. There is more recent evidence that Democrat vote for policies that harm the poor and working class. Climate crisis policies for example.
"In fact, aside from the fact that you're exaggerating the difference between charitable giving levels, the fact that Democrats vote for higher taxes—including their own"
Advocating higher taxes, or in any case when spending other people's money, is not charitable. This is especially true given the case that Democrats tend to be higher income and wealth and their tax increase policies have an adverse impact on families at the lower income and wealth levels as per Laffer Curve realities.
Republicans give WAY more to charities per capita. I live in high wealth upper class liberal territory and my extended family lives in low wealth working class MAGA territory, and although I care for many people that I call friends where I live, in my assessment of the people in both of these tribes, what I see is a general trait of great selfishness in the high wealth upper class liberal territory.
While the people in MAGA territory will give in ways that actually hurts them in order to help others, the people in liberal territory only virtue signal charity that does not result in any material adverse impacts to their own lifestyle.
There is probably something economic-class related to this... people that have less are less clutching to what they have, and people that have more have been determined to be more likely to crave retention of what they have, and to have a greater desire to get more.
However, the problem isn't this... it is the inauthenticity of Democrat virtue. I will give you just one example of many. Where I live, a university town where 80% voted for Kamala Harris, the population passed an ordinance that the majority had to approve any peripheral development project that would be annexed to the city. Since that ordinance was passed, in addition to the environmental impact lawsuits this wealthy NIMBY group throws out to kill every project, even infill, the voters have rejected every peripheral development project for the last 30 years. The result has been sky high housing costs as the supply does not keep up with demand, and the demographic problem of fewer young professionals and families living here. Homelessness has exploded, too low tax revenue leading to roads and parks not being maintained, programs cut... but the wealthy liberal property owners have managed to secure their own wealth in real estate values... while claiming they are affordable housing advocates donating their time to non-profits that advocate tax increases to "help" the homeless.
Well Frank, you might be surprised to learn that people in lower income tiers still overwhelmingly lean Democrat. People still get more Republican the more money they earn, until you get to around three times the median income, and then it starts to lean Democrat again.
And while we all probably agree that rich people have their hypocrisies and annoyances, it would hardly be fair to differentiate that by political party. After all, at least Democrats vote for policies that benefit the poor and working class.
In fact, aside from the fact that you're exaggerating the difference between charitable giving levels, the fact that Democrats vote for higher taxes—including their own—is one of the complications which render these statistics misleading. Those higher taxes generally do more good than private charitable action. According to one study on the charitable giving gap:
------------
"Those in favor of lower taxes have argued that individuals are more capable than the government of allocating money to important causes, including people in need of assistance. But the study found that was not true. Donations do not match government assistance, and without tax money, social services are not funded as robustly.
“The evidence shows that private philanthropy can’t compensate for the loss of government provision,” Dr. Nesbit said. “It’s not equal. What government can put into these things is so much more than what we see through private philanthropy.”
------------
That study emphasized that while they could measure the giving levels, they couldn't make any determinations about where the money went or how it was used. Another study, though, concluded that the distinction was almost entirely accounted for by a rather unsurprising factor—church donations:
------------
"Republicans are not only more likely to attend church than Democrats, but church attendance – among Democrats and Republicans alike – is strongly associated with charitable giving. Gaps in giving, therefore, are linked to differences in the social composition of the parties, in which the average Republican is more religious than the average Democrat. Moreover, the overall giving gap emerges because Republicans donate more to their own religious congregations, rather than nationally active religious charities. Republicans and Democrats give roughly equal amounts to religious organisations aside from their own congregations, and we also find some evidence that Democrats donate more to non-religious organisations than Republicans. In other words, the baseline difference in charitable giving emerges because Republicans are more religious than Democrats, and religious people donate generously to their religious congregations."
------------
You see, anything that you give to a tax-exempt charity organization can be classified as "charitable giving". When I was a young Catholic school boy, my parents dropped an envelope into the collection plate each week, part of which went to reductions in my tuition.
Evangelicals, in particular, engage in a practice known to the Biblically familiar as tithing—giving a certain percentage of your income automatically to the church. And if you've ever seen any of these modern-day mega-churches run by celebrity-seeking, wealth-worshipping Evangelical pastors (in addition to the ones we witnessed on TV growing up in the golden age of televangelism), well, let's just say I don't think you need to be incredibly cynical to feel dubious about where all of that money ends up going, and whom it ends up helping.
Oh, my. Are you an undergraduate or graduate student? This is an excerpt from which “paper” you are writing, hoping to get high marks in which subject?
Sorry if you think I sound too academic, but I was done with grad school over half my life ago. These are my spontaneous thoughts plus a few minutes of research.
I could be more colorful, but I have a history with Frank so I'm trying to be nicer. But this is generally representative of my writing style.
🤯 No, I don’t think you “sound too academic.” And I don’t care about your “writing style.” Your response seems very self-concerned/self-conscious. Introspection can gift you with self-awareness: try it some time.
"After all, at least Democrats vote for policies that benefit the poor and working class."
There is no evidence that Democrats vote for policies that benefit the poor and working class. There is more recent evidence that Democrat vote for policies that harm the poor and working class. Climate crisis policies for example.
"In fact, aside from the fact that you're exaggerating the difference between charitable giving levels, the fact that Democrats vote for higher taxes—including their own"
Advocating higher taxes, or in any case when spending other people's money, is not charitable. This is especially true given the case that Democrats tend to be higher income and wealth and their tax increase policies have an adverse impact on families at the lower income and wealth levels as per Laffer Curve realities.