How much should you give?

raytri · #1 (**permalink**) 12-19-2006, 07:01 PM

This is somewhat related to this thread:
http://www.politicalforum.com/viewto...634&highlight=

But I thought it worth its own.

Ethicist Peter Singer had an interesting article this weekend 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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/ma...charity.t.html

I'm going to list some of his more interesting observations, but the one I wanted to draw attention to was the first one.

1. 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.

2. 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.

Warren Buffett explicitly agrees with that logic. "If you stick me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru,” he said, “you’ll find out how much this talent is going to produce in the wrong kind of soil.”

3. Further, the better off have an ethical obligation to help the poor, because part of our affluence comes at their expense. This according to Columbia University professor Thomas Pogge, who points to everything from trade barriers that protect rich-but-inefficient American farmers from poor-but-efficient African ones, to corporations that buy natural resources from any government willing to sell -- thus providing a market incentive for civil war and corruption that acts as a tax on the developing country's poor. So helping the poor is not charity; it is compensation for some heretofore externalized costs of our own actions.

4. While Americans as individuals are among the most generous in the world, our government aid is so paltry that when we add the two together we still come in well behind countries like Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands, who give three or four times as much total foreign aid (expressed as a share of GDP) than we do.

5. If, Singer says, we define "charitable obligation" as "shoulder our fair share", what does that mean? Singer cites the UN Millenium Development Goals, which hopes, by 2015, to: halve the percentage of people living in extreme poverty; halve the percentage of people who suffer from hunger; halve the percentage of people without access to safe drinking water; provide a primary school education to all children; reduce child-mortality rates by two thirds; reduce maternal mortality by three-quarters; and reverse the spread of AIDS, malaria and other major diseases.

The estimated cost of reaching those goals is $121 billion in 2006, rising to $189 billion a year by 2015. Much of that is already pledged, leaving an annual shortfall of about $48 billion this year and $74 billion by 2015.

If the top 0.01% of U.S. taxpayers (14,400 of them, earning at least $5 million and an average of $12.8 million) gave away 33% of their annual income, they would suffer no hardship and generate $61 billion a year.

If the rest of the top 0.1% of taxpayers (130,000 of them, earning at least $1.1 million and an average of $2 million) gave away 25% of their income, they would suffer no hardship and generate another $65 billion.

Either group alone could fund the Millenium Goals shortfall entirely by themselves. Both groups together could fund the entire program without government help.

You can keep stepping down the income scale, with the top 0.5 percent donating 20% and raising $72 billion; the top 1 percent donating 15% and yielding $35 billion; or the top 10 percent donating 10% and raising $171 billion.

As Singer notes, the most remarkable thing about those numbers is that a scale of donations that is unlikely to impose hardship on anyone would yield an annual total of $404 billion -- from just 10 percent of American families.

Throw in other countries, and the world's wealthy could easily provide $808 billion annually for development aid -- a staggering and world-changing amount.

When the choice is portrayed thus -- buy a yacht, or save 1,000 children from death -- it's not really a defensible decision to buy the yacht; the trickle-down effects of yacht-buying fall far short of the direct effects of charity.

That does not mean the rich should don hairshirts. Singer's numbers leave the wealthy with plenty of money to buy the yacht, and he argues that it's perfectly fine that they do so -- provided they have met their ethical obligations first.

JP5 · #2 (**permalink**) 12-19-2006, 07:44 PM

Nice thought, I guess. But actually----giving money away is not that easy. Look how much our nation gives away only to find out it's confiscated by some corrupt government or dictatorship. This happens over and over again.....and has for as long as I can remember. It helps, of course---but much of it is wasted and doesn't get to the people actually "in need." Then there's always the good chance it's actually used for something nefarious.

That's one issue. Secondly, many people who can afford to give money away, give it locally through their churches, etc----where they know it's going to good use and have some amount of control over it. It's my belief that an individual can always spend his/her money better and more efficiently than some bureacratic gov't or organization can. And that way, they can actually "see" the good it's doing.

I also take exception to your "the rich have an ethical obligation first" comment. Despite the stereotype----many of the so-called "rich" do not have it given to them nor do they marry into it. Most work their arses off and play by the rules, save their entire lives, plan, and do not live beyond their means in order to accumulate what they have. I often give this example to prove my point:

Two neighbors live side by side starting out---making about the same amount of money and with the same education.

Couple #1---the responsible couple---invest their money, save, plan, do not buy a new car every year and do not live beyond their means. They also further their education, study hard and play by the rules in life. The breadwinner works long hours and hard.

Couple #2---the irresponsible couple----do not invest any money. Instead they go through life expecting that Uncle Sam or some other tax payer will support them in their old age. They live from paycheck to paycheck, don't bother to further their education, buy a new expensive car every year and go on expensive trips. They like easy jobs because they really don't want to work hard or long and they wouldn't consider moving to move up in their career. In short, they live it up and don't plan for their future.

IF I'm Couple #1, why should I subsidize Couple #2 in my later years by giving them some of my money?

In short, I'm all for taking care of the truly needy---those who have done everything right in life, but experienced some terrible tragedies, illnesses, or misfortunes. But I am NOT for taking care of the masses who did absolutely nothing to help themselves along the way. I want to be free to pick and choose who I share my hard-earned money with. IF anyone at all.

Joker · #3 (**permalink**) 12-19-2006, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

I also take exception to your "the rich have an ethical obligation first" comment. Despite the stereotype----many of the so-called "rich" do not have it given to them nor do they marry into it. Most work their arses off and play by the rules, save their entire lives, plan, and do not live beyond their means in order to accumulate what they have. I often give this example to prove my point

I've always hated the "rich people worked their asses off to get where they are" argument. I'm not saying it isn't true, but it seems to suggest that those who aren't rich didn't work their asses off, and it ignores a very important key factor in success-- luck.

That said, Carnegie said it best in an essay titled "Wealth." In it, he writes:

Quote:

This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of Wealth: First, to set an example of modest, unostentious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimate wants of those dependent upon him; and after doing so to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds which he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a matter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community-- the man of wealth thus becoming the mere agent and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer, doing for them better then would or could for themselves.

Carnegie may have held a bit of contempt for his poorer brethren, as can be noticed in this passage, but he recognized that it was not only his hard work that accumulated his wealth, but the hard work of his poorer brethren as well. He didn'y simply throw away money to those who didn't deserve it, but created parks, libraries, etc, so that his poorer brethren some benefits of their own hard work, and deserved it, even if they couldn't provide for it themselves.

It's too bad so many of today's rich don't understand such a concept.

lunecat · #4 (**permalink**) 12-19-2006, 10:42 PM

I give £70 per calander month to charities (about 2% of my income)

£30 - RSPCA
£30 - dogs trust
£10 - World concern

So you can see my priorities are : £60 to animal charities and only £10 to humans

I am a cat after all.

rockyreagan · #5 (**permalink**) 12-20-2006, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Ethicist Peter Singer had an interesting article this weekend 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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/ma...charity.t.html

I prefer Adam Smith when it comes to Moral Sentiments. Taxes are not only against good economic policy, the morality of them is questionable in most instances.

Quote:

1. 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.

Sortof silly point, since this in of itself demonstrates a reason why taxes don't need to be so heavily levied against the rich in general, and the richest among us in particular. As its been proven already those who has more faith are the heighest level of people who donate money. As far as what they should be "expected" to donate by their own free will, doesn't amount to much. What matter's is not what a group expects a individual to do, but what a individual himself wants to do with his own money.

Furthermore the point that Buffet and Gates "Give more" even "after inflation" doesn't really even mean as much when looking at population. Buffet's $37 billion, divided among 300 million people isn't going to have as much affect on individuals then Carnegie's $9.25 billion among 11 million people of those times. (That is if money goes directly towards the people its suppose to go towards, which it rarly does although private charites are better then the government.)

Quote:

2. 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.

That is simply ridiculous, people are compensated for their labor in the amount of money they are given for their trade or deals. Further I prefer the 1976, and 1974 (the Austrian, not the Swed) winner to the 78.

Quote:

Warren Buffett explicitly agrees with that logic. "If you stick me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru," he said, “you’ll find out how much this talent is going to produce in the wrong kind of soil."

If Buffet feel's so strongly about it he can give away all of his money (except for the bar minimum to survive for his last remaining years of course) to the government and any charity he wants to make a difference towards those of us who are "getting screwed" well he won life's lottery.

Quote:

3. Further, the better off have an ethical obligation to help the poor, because part of our affluence comes at their expense.

The only time a person has any moral obligation is when he himself agree's to it (with the possible exception of defending his nation well it is under attack).

Quote:

This according to Columbia University professor Thomas Pogge, who points to everything from trade barriers that protect rich-but-inefficient American farmers from poor-but-efficient African ones,

Wow, a follower of Immanual Kant what a shock. But he does have a good first point, I'm against trade barriers on any level. Let the free market reign, the freer the market the freer the people.

Quote:

to corporations that buy natural resources from any government willing to sell

The objection I have to this, I doubt is the objection that the Spawn of Kant has against it. I don't think government's should have a monopoly over resources, I think it should be privatized. Anyways the buying and selling of resources is the very foundation of economics, being against it is moronic. If I buy from you a cheeseburger and your son gets mad at you because he wanted it, and you sold it to me instead is hardly my fault or problem.

Quote:

-- thus providing a market incentive for civil war and corruption that acts as a tax on the developing country's poor.

Let the free market reign, there is no reason for government to have a monopoly on resources. Government doesn't con troll resources= no economic reason for a civil war. The problem with developing countries is they mostly move away from the free market, they don't move towards it. Government is not the answer to problems, government is the problem.

Quote:

So helping the poor is not charity; it is compensation for some heretofore externalized costs of our own actions.

That's ridiculous. Its like saying that the deer should thank the lion because the lion killed off other deer and there by gave it a better chance to eat more grass.

The lion, like the worker is looking out for his own self interest. Because the collective workings of the lions makes it easier for certain deer to eat more food hardly matter. The lion's get there dinner, as the workers and others get there money.

Developing countries are developing countries because they usually have a intellectually and military elite that control's its government. These elites move away from liberating free market ideal's in order to keep there power and increase their own pockets.

Quote:

4. While Americans as individuals are among the most generous in the world, our government aid is so paltry that when we add the two together we still come in well behind countries like Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands, who give three or four times as much total foreign aid (expressed as a share of GDP) than we do.

Since where throwing out names, the world famous Peter Bauer constantly showed and proved the uselessness of foreign aid. Indeed foreign aid should simply be known as inter government subsenties, its what it really is. By calling it Foreign Aid you've set up the idea that it is aiding people. But in fact foreign aid harms the individuals its suppose to help. Foreign aid isn't given to the individuals that need it, it is subsidies granted to governments. Which makes those government's stronger, in places where government is too strong and constantly dictatorial to begin with. There is no "morality" in telling a citizens of a African nation that you are going to help them out, and then give the money to the dictatorial government that had just killed his son.

Quote:

5. If, Singer says, we define "charitable obligation" as "shoulder our fair share", what does that mean? Singer cites the UN Millenium Development Goals, which hopes, by 2015, to: halve the percentage of people living in extreme poverty; halve the percentage of people who suffer from hunger; halve the percentage of people without access to safe drinking water; provide a primary school education to all children; reduce child-mortality rates by two thirds; reduce maternal mortality by three-quarters; and reverse the spread of AIDS, malaria and other major diseases.

The United Nation's has done nothing to help push forward those ideals. In fact the UN tends to grant a moral standing for dictiorial regimes. They are within them self a interest group, that despite its egalitarian hyperbole the usually end up supporting factors that punish the poor and weak in developed countries. From running away from the free market, to the Oil for Food Scandal, Rape's in Africa, and other "humanitarian" decisions that have done nothing more then backfired.

Quote:

The estimated cost of reaching those goals is $121 billion in 2006, rising to $189 billion a year by 2015. Much of that is already pledged, leaving an annual shortfall of about $48 billion this year and $74 billion by 2015.

Throwing money at problems has never solved or helped anyone. It is set up from a incorrect viewpoint, that people are poor and because they are poor they can't generate capital and if they can't generate capital they can't develop. And that the only way they can get out of it is if capital is brought in from outside. Which brings about the question, if that's true how did any of the rich countries ever become rich if they all started out poor?

Furthermore if all it took to solve a problem was to take money from some and give to another, then why the outright failure Communism? Why the failure of the New Deal or the Great Society? Why did LBJ lose the war on Poverty? Why isn't Russia a "paradise"? Bureaucracies, and governments, and money alone isn't the answer.

Quote:

When the choice is portrayed thus -- buy a yacht, or save 1,000 children from death -- it's not really a defensible decision to buy the yacht; the trickle-down effects of yacht-buying fall far short of the direct effects of charity.

Some charities perhaps, but charities are still bureaucracies, private ones better then governmental of course. But still you honestly believe a international bureaucracy is going to be able to solve all the problems of the world? The last few things the UN has run have been covered with scandals, death, rape, pain, and has hurt the very people they have tried to help.... like most bureaucratic orginzations due.

BTW for the record hopes it all makes sence as far as words and sentence structure, if that becomes a problem just tell me. Its pretty late here but I couldn't not respond to this before I hit the sack.

JavaBlack · #6 (**permalink**) 12-20-2006, 07:04 AM

The uselessness of foreign aid is meaningful... but it is used too often as an excuse. The people who complain about its uselessness rarely if ever suggest a better way to use the money to take care of the problem. It seems to me most who use the argument simply do not care.
People cannot be made to care. I think that is the lesson we are learning from the shifts in our younger generations. Our culture is becoming more and more one that doesn't care. Religion is a hollow shell we use in place of caring.
Wonder why the top donors aren't religious? They have no shell to protect them from what they see and care about. Not that all atheists care... That's far from the truth. But those who do have nothing to fall back on, no "It'll work itself out" garbage.
Nothing works itself out. Actions are taken by some that work things out. Thank God we have people like Gates who do take this action. But will there be future Carnegies or Gates or just an explosion of businessmen who owe nothing but to themselves and the stockholders that make them.
The Protestant work ethic has turned on itself. And Christianity no longer sees the poor as anything but undeserving wretches, faceless masses of laziness and sloth... Meanwhile they use any rationalization in the book to keep from caring: They're lazy... It doesn't do any good... God will provide.
This is the beginning of Hell's reign.

barney-fife · #7 (**permalink**) 12-20-2006, 02:20 PM

"Make all you can. Save all you can. Give all you can."

John Wesley

JP5 · #8 (**permalink**) 12-20-2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joker";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

I also take exception to your "the rich have an ethical obligation first" comment. Despite the stereotype----many of the so-called "rich" do not have it given to them nor do they marry into it. Most work their arses off and play by the rules, save their entire lives, plan, and do not live beyond their means in order to accumulate what they have. I often give this example to prove my point

I've always hated the "rich people worked their asses off to get where they are" argument. I'm not saying it isn't true, but it seems to suggest that those who aren't rich didn't work their asses off, and it ignores a very important key factor in success-- luck.

But it doesn't bother you that some Dems want everyone to believe that all rich people are evil and should be demonized???? MOST of the rich worked their arses off to get where they are. Plain and simple. Now---there ARE exceptions, of course. Like Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi........ALL were either married into wealth or it was given to them by Daddy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joker";p=&quot

That said, Carnegie said it best in an essay titled "Wealth." In it, he writes:

Quote:

This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of Wealth: First, to set an example of modest, unostentious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimate wants of those dependent upon him; and after doing so to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds which he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a matter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community-- the man of wealth thus becoming the mere agent and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer, doing for them better then would or could for themselves.

Carnegie may have held a bit of contempt for his poorer brethren, as can be noticed in this passage, but he recognized that it was not only his hard work that accumulated his wealth, but the hard work of his poorer brethren as well. He didn'y simply throw away money to those who didn't deserve it, but created parks, libraries, etc, so that his poorer brethren some benefits of their own hard work, and deserved it, even if they couldn't provide for it themselves.

It's too bad so many of today's rich don't understand such a concept.

Oh really? I see plenty of it where I am. Plenty of the rich are philanthropic in nature and fund many things for others to enjoy. I don't demonize the rich simply because they are rich. I know some very, very nice rich people, and I know some very, very despicable rich people. But then.....I know some very, very nice poor people and some very despicable poor people. You just can't generalize. But I do know that most CEO's ----who the Dems like to demonize---work hard and worked hard to get where they are. And I think it pretty telling that while Dems demonize corporate CEO's for THEIR salaries, they never mention how much money sports figures, or movie stars, or Union bosses get for what they do. In other words, they are perfectly willing to leave their base alone on that subject.

Joker · #9 (**permalink**) 12-20-2006, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joker";p=&quot

I've always hated the "rich people worked their asses off to get where they are" argument. I'm not saying it isn't true, but it seems to suggest that those who aren't rich didn't work their asses off, and it ignores a very important key factor in success-- luck.

But it doesn't bother you that some Dems want everyone to believe that all rich people are evil and should be demonized???? MOST of the rich worked their arses off to get where they are. Plain and simple. Now---there ARE exceptions, of course. Like Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi........ALL were either married into wealth or it was given to them by Daddy.

So what? Am I supposed to be in awe of you because you work your ass off? (universal you, not you specifically) My wife works her ass off, too. My parents work their asses off as well. I work my ass off, too, raising my baby for free. None of us are rich. What do you want? A medal?

Quote:

Oh really? I see plenty of it where I am. Plenty of the rich are philanthropic in nature and fund many things for others to enjoy. I don't demonize the rich simply because they are rich. I know some very, very nice rich people, and I know some very, very despicable rich people. But then.....I know some very, very nice poor people and some very despicable poor people. You just can't generalize.

Fair enough. Perhaps I spoke too harshly (it was late, and I was tired and grouchy), but either way, Carnegie's words are a good guideline for "How much should you give?"

JP5 · #10 (**permalink**) 12-20-2006, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joker";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joker";p=&quot

I've always hated the "rich people worked their asses off to get where they are" argument. I'm not saying it isn't true, but it seems to suggest that those who aren't rich didn't work their asses off, and it ignores a very important key factor in success-- luck.

But it doesn't bother you that some Dems want everyone to believe that all rich people are evil and should be demonized???? MOST of the rich worked their arses off to get where they are. Plain and simple. Now---there ARE exceptions, of course. Like Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi........ALL were either married into wealth or it was given to them by Daddy.

So what? Am I supposed to be in awe of you because you work your ass off? (universal you, not you specifically) My wife works her ass off, too. My parents work their asses off as well. I work my ass off, too, raising my baby for free. None of us are rich. What do you want? A medal?

Quote:

Oh really? I see plenty of it where I am. Plenty of the rich are philanthropic in nature and fund many things for others to enjoy. I don't demonize the rich simply because they are rich. I know some very, very nice rich people, and I know some very, very despicable rich people. But then.....I know some very, very nice poor people and some very despicable poor people. You just can't generalize.

Fair enough. Perhaps I spoke too harshly (it was late, and I was tired and grouchy), but either way, Carnegie's words are a good guideline for "How much should you give?"

But nobody is demonizing them as a class. Nobody is saying the non-rich don't also work hard for what they have. All I'm saying is STOP demonizing the rich as if they don't deserve what they have. MOST do and MOST worked hard for it.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode