Full Version: Conservatives are more generous than liberals?
Uh oh. This ought to make conservatives go crazy with glee after they read this. Aren't they the same ones who discredit anything printed in the gray lady? I'm sure they're going to love this story now.
That's hardly a surprise, is it? Rich people are more likely to vote republican, and they have much more money to donate. Often, the hungry and homeless are the Democrats. Besides, Republicans tend to prefer private donations over welfare by the state.
The rich aren't more likely to donate to charities. People of more modest means traditionally are more generous than are their rich counterparts. Furthermore, your statement about rich people are more likely to vote Republican is not supported by any facts. Heck, just about every rich public person and celebrity there is was supporting Obama. Rich folks paradoxically tend to be Democrats, and this article seems to be criticizing them for talking a big game when it comes to compassion and charity but not following up on their words.
I wonder which group is more likely to pay taxes, or which takes the most deductions.
Also what kind of career choices do members of each party make? How is "income" calculated?
Do they look at liberal and conservative; or progressives, independents and unaffiliated who register with Democrats or Republicans because they are the only two choices if you want to vote for a candidate with a real chance of winning?
For those who like these constricting definitions a 2005 typology test to play around with. Are basic needs a right or a responsibility?
Which begs the question "Would these results remain consistent every four years, decade or generation?"
How might it have differed in the 60s with the Vietnam War and the Peace Corps generation? Would war-supporters have considered their service in Vietnam as a kind of foreign assistance to help them liberate their country; and would Peace Corps volunteers have considered their entire service charity?
Perhaps Democrats believe the state, as representative of the people as a whole, has a responsibility to those in need. Whereas Republicans believe that those in need should be dependent on the charity of others.
Also what kind of career choices do members of each party make? How is "income" calculated?
Do they look at liberal and conservative; or progressives, independents and unaffiliated who register with Democrats or Republicans because they are the only two choices if you want to vote for a candidate with a real chance of winning?
For those who like these constricting definitions a 2005 typology test to play around with. Are basic needs a right or a responsibility?
Which begs the question "Would these results remain consistent every four years, decade or generation?"
How might it have differed in the 60s with the Vietnam War and the Peace Corps generation? Would war-supporters have considered their service in Vietnam as a kind of foreign assistance to help them liberate their country; and would Peace Corps volunteers have considered their entire service charity?
Perhaps Democrats believe the state, as representative of the people as a whole, has a responsibility to those in need. Whereas Republicans believe that those in need should be dependent on the charity of others.
I don't know the answers to all your questions. I just found the NYT article both surprising and enlightening. I confess it contradicted some stereotypes I probably possessed.
Actually I wasn't directing the questions at you personally Crew Chief, but at the writer of the article. I have not read the entire article and thought that someone who had might have found answers to the questions and would post them here. Since I don't have a lot of time on this library computer I will not read the article here but at home perhaps.
But I don't expect that I shall find adequate discussion in the article about the function of progressive taxation in the maintenance of our peaceful democracy, and how that has been slowly diminished since the New Deal, and since Teddy Roosevelt earlier.
But I don't expect that I shall find adequate discussion in the article about the function of progressive taxation in the maintenance of our peaceful democracy, and how that has been slowly diminished since the New Deal, and since Teddy Roosevelt earlier.
I don't itemize on my taxes and I think I gave maybe 5% of my total net income this year which is low for me but then again, this has been a sucky year all around finance wise
It's all the guilt they have for ripping everyone else off. Guilt can be a good thing, just ask my mother. 
It should not be guilt but the law that determines who and how much taxes are paid, and by whom. The code has needed revision and simplification to reflect changing times for centuries, and will continue to do so.
But a fundamental principal that should be established is that the debt owed to society should reflect the benefit from it.
A progressive income tax (with few if any exemptions or non-taxable non-monetary income) is more fair than a "flat tax" because, no matter the source of personal income, the individual can be assumed to have benefitted more from the infrastructure supported by those taxes.
A true fair tax would exempt only the "minimum income" required to maitain a "dignified lifestyle" from taxation. Those below that would have the support of taxes paid by those with incomes above that level.
One can argue until the cows come home about how a "minimum income" and a "dignified lifestyle" should be defined but the necessity of a progressive tax to support social necessities should not be in question in a civilized, much less a compassionate, society.
Obama will have a very difficult time practicing this with a "team" of economists surrounding him who do not believe in a progressive tax. It is not clear yet what this "team" really believes - to whom it will be beholden.
But a fundamental principal that should be established is that the debt owed to society should reflect the benefit from it.
A progressive income tax (with few if any exemptions or non-taxable non-monetary income) is more fair than a "flat tax" because, no matter the source of personal income, the individual can be assumed to have benefitted more from the infrastructure supported by those taxes.
A true fair tax would exempt only the "minimum income" required to maitain a "dignified lifestyle" from taxation. Those below that would have the support of taxes paid by those with incomes above that level.
One can argue until the cows come home about how a "minimum income" and a "dignified lifestyle" should be defined but the necessity of a progressive tax to support social necessities should not be in question in a civilized, much less a compassionate, society.
Obama will have a very difficult time practicing this with a "team" of economists surrounding him who do not believe in a progressive tax. It is not clear yet what this "team" really believes - to whom it will be beholden.
I just came across this piece that shows that Kristof was quoting a notable right-wing (American Enterprise Institute) author's "study" about conservatives being more generous. Big surprise, a "liberal" New York Times columnist using conservative lies to advance...conservative lies!
QUOTE
Kristof had a wonderful story—a man-bites-dog tale, a tale which would endear him to those on the right. But was his story actually accurate? The facts about this matter seem quite murky—and Kristof’s sources seem less than reliable.
First: Arthur C. Brooks, Kristof’s principal source, isn’t just any old author of books. He’s currently president of the American Enterprise Institute—the type of conservative “think tank” which does some perfectly decent work, but also churns all manner of dreck in our sad “culture wars.” Why didn’t Kristof note this connection? If you know, please tell us.
Beyond that, what “study by Google” did Kristof mean? We’ll be honest—we didn’t even know that Google does studies. But even after trying to fact-check, we don’t know what Google study he meant. Even on-line, Kristof didn’t link to this study, or to any other source. Other Times columnists link with abandon. Kristof left us cold—in the dark.
Of course, it doesn’t matter who makes a claim, as long as the claim is accurate. But is it true, what Arthur Brooks said? Do households headed by conservatives really give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals? We’ll only say this: After spending a chunk of time looking through some critiques of Brooks’ claims, we’d have to say we simply don’t know—and we’d be surprised if Kristof can really defend his assertions. We’ll link to a few critiques below—but there are some conceptual problems involved in these matters, and the data don’t seem to be hugely dependable. We’ll also link you to a critique of that “generosity index” by the Catalog for Philanthropy. Their cited claim seems a bit shaky too. But it helped make a pleasing story.
***
In case you want to waste your time too: How solid are the claims in Brooks’ book? It seemed to us, after doing some checking, that it would be quite hard to figure that out. One critique was offered at The Volokh Conspiracy, by Professor Jim Lindgren, not by Eugene Volokh himself. (Lindgren: “Although the liberal v. conservative split is the hook for the book, the data are not nearly as stark as the hype surrounding the book might indicate.” Just click here.) At the Boston Globe, Christopher Shea also wrote a critique which raised doubts about Brooks’ claims. “Brooks's book should keep scholars busy for quite a while, given its wealth of empirical claims,” Shea wrote. That said, we couldn’t find a lot of critiques of Brooks’ claims, one way or another. Our guess: It would be very hard to evaluate his work.
First: Arthur C. Brooks, Kristof’s principal source, isn’t just any old author of books. He’s currently president of the American Enterprise Institute—the type of conservative “think tank” which does some perfectly decent work, but also churns all manner of dreck in our sad “culture wars.” Why didn’t Kristof note this connection? If you know, please tell us.
Beyond that, what “study by Google” did Kristof mean? We’ll be honest—we didn’t even know that Google does studies. But even after trying to fact-check, we don’t know what Google study he meant. Even on-line, Kristof didn’t link to this study, or to any other source. Other Times columnists link with abandon. Kristof left us cold—in the dark.
Of course, it doesn’t matter who makes a claim, as long as the claim is accurate. But is it true, what Arthur Brooks said? Do households headed by conservatives really give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals? We’ll only say this: After spending a chunk of time looking through some critiques of Brooks’ claims, we’d have to say we simply don’t know—and we’d be surprised if Kristof can really defend his assertions. We’ll link to a few critiques below—but there are some conceptual problems involved in these matters, and the data don’t seem to be hugely dependable. We’ll also link you to a critique of that “generosity index” by the Catalog for Philanthropy. Their cited claim seems a bit shaky too. But it helped make a pleasing story.
***
In case you want to waste your time too: How solid are the claims in Brooks’ book? It seemed to us, after doing some checking, that it would be quite hard to figure that out. One critique was offered at The Volokh Conspiracy, by Professor Jim Lindgren, not by Eugene Volokh himself. (Lindgren: “Although the liberal v. conservative split is the hook for the book, the data are not nearly as stark as the hype surrounding the book might indicate.” Just click here.) At the Boston Globe, Christopher Shea also wrote a critique which raised doubts about Brooks’ claims. “Brooks's book should keep scholars busy for quite a while, given its wealth of empirical claims,” Shea wrote. That said, we couldn’t find a lot of critiques of Brooks’ claims, one way or another. Our guess: It would be very hard to evaluate his work.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.