The charitable and the cheap: Which one are you?"
Zipperfish @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:13 pm
From Margaret Wente, Globe and Mail, January 20, 2007. "The charitable and the cheap: Which one are you?"
Wente
(Probably a dead link by tomorrow)
$1:
On the generosity scale, the Americans lead the world. They make us look pretty chintzy. They give twice as much of their income to charity as we do. If we gave the same percentage of our incomes to charity as the Americans do, the Canadian charitable sector would be richer by more than $9-billion every year.
...
The most generous people in North America are the small-town folks who go to church, drive pick-up trucks, are very family-oriented, have average jobs, and probably hate the gun registry. They give away more of their income -- by far -- than anybody else.
...
Recently, a major American TV show decided to subject Mr. Brooks's findings to a real-world test. It got the Salvation Army to station a bell-ringer in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, just outside the Wal-Mart. The Sally Ann put another bell-ringer in San Francisco, just outside Saks. The average income in San Francisco is twice as much as in Sioux Falls. The San Francisco bell-ringer, who encountered twice as many people, collected only half as much money as the one in Sioux Falls. As one city official explained to Mr. Brooks, "We were taught to tithe here, sir."
So what's the least charitable place in Canada? That would be Quebec, where people donate only 0.3 per cent of their income. Quebeckers are far more European in their expectations of the state, and are also the most secular. You want real compassion? Go to Utah. You want lots of theatre? Go to Chicago. You want to get something back? Try giving. It's a good thing.
...
The most generous people in North America are the small-town folks who go to church, drive pick-up trucks, are very family-oriented, have average jobs, and probably hate the gun registry. They give away more of their income -- by far -- than anybody else.
...
Recently, a major American TV show decided to subject Mr. Brooks's findings to a real-world test. It got the Salvation Army to station a bell-ringer in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, just outside the Wal-Mart. The Sally Ann put another bell-ringer in San Francisco, just outside Saks. The average income in San Francisco is twice as much as in Sioux Falls. The San Francisco bell-ringer, who encountered twice as many people, collected only half as much money as the one in Sioux Falls. As one city official explained to Mr. Brooks, "We were taught to tithe here, sir."
So what's the least charitable place in Canada? That would be Quebec, where people donate only 0.3 per cent of their income. Quebeckers are far more European in their expectations of the state, and are also the most secular. You want real compassion? Go to Utah. You want lots of theatre? Go to Chicago. You want to get something back? Try giving. It's a good thing.
Interesting. Conseravtive religious people give the most to charity. Last place--secular liberals. Something fo liberals to be ashamed of, in light of how they (we?) like to preach to everyone about human rights?
Firecat @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:23 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
From Margaret Wente, Globe and Mail, January 20, 2007. "The charitable and the cheap: Which one are you?"
Wente
(Probably a dead link by tomorrow)
Interesting. Conseravtive religious people give the most to charity. Last place--secular liberals. Something fo liberals to be ashamed of, in light of how they (we?) like to preach to everyone about human rights?
Wente
(Probably a dead link by tomorrow)
$1:
On the generosity scale, the Americans lead the world. They make us look pretty chintzy. They give twice as much of their income to charity as we do. If we gave the same percentage of our incomes to charity as the Americans do, the Canadian charitable sector would be richer by more than $9-billion every year.
...
The most generous people in North America are the small-town folks who go to church, drive pick-up trucks, are very family-oriented, have average jobs, and probably hate the gun registry. They give away more of their income -- by far -- than anybody else.
...
Recently, a major American TV show decided to subject Mr. Brooks's findings to a real-world test. It got the Salvation Army to station a bell-ringer in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, just outside the Wal-Mart. The Sally Ann put another bell-ringer in San Francisco, just outside Saks. The average income in San Francisco is twice as much as in Sioux Falls. The San Francisco bell-ringer, who encountered twice as many people, collected only half as much money as the one in Sioux Falls. As one city official explained to Mr. Brooks, "We were taught to tithe here, sir."
So what's the least charitable place in Canada? That would be Quebec, where people donate only 0.3 per cent of their income. Quebeckers are far more European in their expectations of the state, and are also the most secular. You want real compassion? Go to Utah. You want lots of theatre? Go to Chicago. You want to get something back? Try giving. It's a good thing.
...
The most generous people in North America are the small-town folks who go to church, drive pick-up trucks, are very family-oriented, have average jobs, and probably hate the gun registry. They give away more of their income -- by far -- than anybody else.
...
Recently, a major American TV show decided to subject Mr. Brooks's findings to a real-world test. It got the Salvation Army to station a bell-ringer in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, just outside the Wal-Mart. The Sally Ann put another bell-ringer in San Francisco, just outside Saks. The average income in San Francisco is twice as much as in Sioux Falls. The San Francisco bell-ringer, who encountered twice as many people, collected only half as much money as the one in Sioux Falls. As one city official explained to Mr. Brooks, "We were taught to tithe here, sir."
So what's the least charitable place in Canada? That would be Quebec, where people donate only 0.3 per cent of their income. Quebeckers are far more European in their expectations of the state, and are also the most secular. You want real compassion? Go to Utah. You want lots of theatre? Go to Chicago. You want to get something back? Try giving. It's a good thing.
Interesting. Conseravtive religious people give the most to charity. Last place--secular liberals. Something fo liberals to be ashamed of, in light of how they (we?) like to preach to everyone about human rights?
you are attempting to compare giving habits in societies that have different expectations of the state. Your conclusions are faulty trying to somehow make a facile translation to the Liberal/Conservative paradigm.
A perfect example of trying to prove a pet theory with unrelated information.
This bullshit is why I've lost interst in this forum. It's the same old crap over and over.
fire_i @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:29 pm
I saw an article similar to that in a local newspaper. I think it was based off similar studies (or the same ones). It said all donations given to companies specialized in redistribution of dons to other nonprofit organizations weren't accounted for. That possibly changes the results noticeably in Quebec, where that kind of companies is very popular. Yet, despite this, we don't have much reasons to be proud.
I'm suprised religious people give out more according to the article you posted. Long ago I read one that said atheists did! Either things changed a lot in several years, either the article I read long ago concentrated too much on New England.
Us Liberals should give ourself a swift kick in the back and give away some more. It sure wouldn't hurt... especially our reputation, since it seems it's what ended up as the main subject of the article. =/
Kind of sad when you think about it.
Streaker @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:50 pm
Here's the key line in the article, at least re Quebec:
$1:
Quebeckers are far more European in their expectations of the state
Quebecers tend to prefer having their charities run by the government, and it is to the government that they give more of their donations (in the form of higher taxes).
In an earlier era, the Catholic church ran many institutions that are now in the hands of the state, and there's no doubt that people donated very generously to church-run charities. There is also little doubt that the church did an exceedingly poor job of running them.
grainfedprairieboy @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:24 pm
Streaker Streaker:
Quebecers tend to prefer having their charities run by the government, and it is to the government that they give more of their donations (in the form of higher taxes).
Fraser Institute did a study a few years back on that very thing and came to the same conclusion. The higher the tax the greater the perception that it is the government's responsibility the less donated. The study also found more people opting out of religious followings and the repercussions were fewer participants in charitable organisations.
hurley_108 @ Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:37 pm
grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
Streaker Streaker:
Quebecers tend to prefer having their charities run by the government, and it is to the government that they give more of their donations (in the form of higher taxes).
Fraser Institute did a study a few years back on that very thing and came to the same conclusion. The higher the tax the greater the perception that it is the government's responsibility the less donated. The study also found more people opting out of religious followings and the repercussions were fewer participants in charitable organisations.
In that vein, I wonder which group is more likely to cheat on their taxes - religious conservatices or secular liberals.
Zipperfish @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:08 am
Firecat Firecat:
you are attempting to compare giving habits in societies that have different expectations of the state. Your conclusions are faulty trying to somehow make a facile translation to the Liberal/Conservative paradigm.
A perfect example of trying to prove a pet theory with unrelated information.
This bullshit is why I've lost interst in this forum. It's the same old crap over and over.
A perfect example of trying to prove a pet theory with unrelated information.
This bullshit is why I've lost interst in this forum. It's the same old crap over and over.
I'm actually not trying to compare anything. I just posted the piece. I'm definitely a secular liberal (secular libertarian, more likely), so I find the whole thing alittle embarrassing, actually.
Do we as liberals, just talk a big game? Do conservatives, especially religious ones, give more money becasue they have a better sense of community than liberals? Is this, as you say, a study ebnt on proving a pre-conceived notion?
Zipperfish @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 12:14 am
grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
Streaker Streaker:
Quebecers tend to prefer having their charities run by the government, and it is to the government that they give more of their donations (in the form of higher taxes).
Fraser Institute did a study a few years back on that very thing and came to the same conclusion. The higher the tax the greater the perception that it is the government's responsibility the less donated. The study also found more people opting out of religious followings and the repercussions were fewer participants in charitable organisations.
The difference is that the Fraser Insititute didn't differenitate types of charities, as this latest study seems to have. There are charities and there are charities. The Fraser Institute itself is a registered charity. To me, charity is about housing the homeless and feeding the hungry. It boggles my mind that The Fraser Institute, an organizatin that would probably find it efficient to feed the homeless to the hungry, would be a registered charity.
This latest study says that conservatives don't just give more than liberals to "conservative foundations," but to actual people in need--poor people.
I'd like to see more of a culture of giving in Canada.
Triple_R @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 6:05 am
Jesus strongly encouraged His followers to give generously (and as directly as possible) to those who approach us in need.
Marxist-Leninist philosophy emphasizes the centrality of the state, and how wealth redistribution is a state concern.
In modern times, wealth redistribution does not come from authoritarian communist regimes like what we had in the old USSR, but in more benign measures such as a gradiated income tax coupled with government programs like HRDC, EI, welfare, and even at a macro level the equalization program between Canada's provinces.
People are cognizant of this wealth redistribution, and hence to such an extent that it exists they feel less need to give to charity, holding that the government is addressing the needs of the poor sufficiently.
One could argue that religious conservatives, and secular liberals, are about equally generous - one group simply believes in the more direct generousity typified by charitable donations while the other group holds to a more indirect (but perhaps more well-regulated) generousity in the form of higher taxation.
However, it would be interesting to compare the generousity of religious conservatives in places like California, France, Ontario, and Quebec to that of secular liberals in those places, to see if the 'generousity gap' (to coin an easy-to-use term) holds up even when the level of taxation is the same.
Tricks @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:28 am
Triple_R Triple_R:
Jesus strongly encouraged His followers to give generously (and as directly as possible) to those who approach us in need.
Well to get into heaven you supposedly have to give away all your possessions. 
VitaminC @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:54 am
Is this a comparison between Liberals and Conservatives?
Or is it a comparison between small town folk and big city slickers?
Or is it a comparison between the religious and the secular?
When you have a comparison with six variables, you can't really get that much information from the study....
I don't think there is any question that people in small towns are more generous than people in big cities. I don't think it has anything to do with religion or political affiliation though, there is just a different mentality in small towns.
Living in the city is about trying to get ahead. I might add that the successful capitalism of the big cities is the reason small towns can exist (money flows through cities to small towns through taxes).
dog77_1999 @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:14 am
VitaminC VitaminC:
Is this a comparison between Liberals and Conservatives?
Or is it a comparison between small town folk and big city slickers?
Or is it a comparison between the religious and the secular?
When you have a comparison with six variables, you can't really get that much information from the study....
I don't think there is any question that people in small towns are more generous than people in big cities. I don't think it has anything to do with religion or political affiliation though, there is just a different mentality in small towns.
Living in the city is about trying to get ahead. I might add that the successful capitalism of the big cities is the reason small towns can exist (money flows through cities to small towns through taxes).
Or is it a comparison between small town folk and big city slickers?
Or is it a comparison between the religious and the secular?
When you have a comparison with six variables, you can't really get that much information from the study....
I don't think there is any question that people in small towns are more generous than people in big cities. I don't think it has anything to do with religion or political affiliation though, there is just a different mentality in small towns.
Living in the city is about trying to get ahead. I might add that the successful capitalism of the big cities is the reason small towns can exist (money flows through cities to small towns through taxes).
It is very hard to tell. The are all strongly correlated to each other. Wouldn't mind seeing it myself but I doubt it would change the results.
And I would reconsider what you said about small towns. The big citiies' survival depends upon them. Sure it would stink if small towns didn't have decent money for schools, but I think it would stink more if there wasn't any food in the big cities.
VitaminC @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:42 am
oops
VitaminC @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:43 am
oops
VitaminC @ Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:44 am
dog77_1999 dog77_1999:
VitaminC VitaminC:
I don't think there is any question that people in small towns are more generous than people in big cities. I don't think it has anything to do with religion or political affiliation though, there is just a different mentality in small towns.
Living in the city is about trying to get ahead. I might add that the successful capitalism of the big cities is the reason small towns can exist (money flows through cities to small towns through taxes).
And I would reconsider what you said about small towns. The big citiies' survival depends upon them. Sure it would stink if small towns didn't have decent money for schools, but I think it would stink more if there wasn't any food in the big cities.
I should reconsider saying people in small towns are more generous than people in big cities?
I certainly think we are all better off having small towns AND big cities. But when every small towner wants to attack Toronto and say how much it sucks, it's easy to forget why I love small towns and just buy peaches from Florida.