Who gives more, conservatives or liberals?

Post Reply New Topic

I agree that it is important to consider those things, but I believe I'm right in saying the gap still exists after removing that and controlling for things like income.

Conservative Christians have some dodgy charity habits (Clicky - bolding mine):


... but they are far from "all conservatives".

I like the assumption/assertion that households are 'headed'.

There's a comedian in the UK called Mark Steel. He describes taking his son to meet reknowned cricketer Geoffrey Boycott:

The point of this is how odd and forced dichotomies can be.

How much is tax deductable? How much goes to churches? How much to the sort of stuff jrjones9933 mentioned? How does it stand across income? How much actually goes to helping people?

The big posh bastard UK public (as in it's open to anyone who can pay, so not really open to anyone but the wealthy) school, Eton, has charitable status.



Well, as



The liberal who sees government spending as not evil in itself will likely attend to campaigning for more of such in the areas they see lacking. The conservative who sees it as evil will likely prefer to give their tax deductable donations to causes they support. How many of these causes help the poor without question is another matter.

I'm a leftist. As circumstances stand, I see it as the responsibility of the state to look after those who need help, no tyranising involved. I see charity designed to help those in material need as a mark of failure of the state and the economic set up.

The "tax break" for giving is a joke.

1. It needs to be enough so that you can itemize it as a deduction versus using the standard deduction.

2. It can not exceed a given percentage of your AGI or the excess is not deductible.

So, a lot of people give but get no credit or little credit for what they give. Some give more than they can take credit for.

Interesting study.

I don't give to charity but I barely have money for myself.

I guess what I find odd is why people who on average earn less money would want to be associated with the conservative party. I'm not going to lie - food stamps have helped me, and I'm not going to let conservatives shame me into thinking I shouldn't accept them. This is part of the reason I associate more with liberals.

I think it's great that conservatives give more to charity than liberals. But I don't think such a simplistic study really provides much insight into why. I don't think it necessarily implies that they are "better" people. I've also read that conservatives work harder. Go figure. Sometimes mental balance comes to in play. There is a very striking difference in personality types of conservatives and liberals, and conservatives do some things right. I just don't like the constant shaming tactics - like for example "liberals are all lazy". Successful people sometimes associate with conservatives because they can't even imagine what it's like not to be successful. ie "if i can do it why not you, you lazy as*hole?" etc etc Others associate with it because perhaps they don't know any better. Others perhaps are shamed into it. God only knows. I'm not saying conservatives are bad. But some of their principles make no sense to me.

Here is something to think about:
Women make (on average) less than men. African Americans (on average) make less than white folks. Hispanic people (on average) make less than white folks. Now consider that those demographics (on average) are not conservatives. More college students are liberal than conservative (at the moment), and there aren't too many college kids rolling around on piles of spare cash that they can give away, either. All of these demographics are more likely to need charity than to be able to give to charity. These things pull down the average considerably.

The absolute wealthiest people in this country are more often conservative than liberal, and also tend to be christians who donate the required percentage to their church (as well as those who have accountants to tell them how much to donate to maximize tax advantages). The IRS permits you to deduct donations made to 501(c)(3) or (4), which means that all that cash the Koch brothers pour into their 10 super PACs (as well as the subsidiaries and trusts operating under their authority) count as charitable donations. These things pull the conservative average way up.

I tend to hate these kind of statistics that get trotted out (by both ends of the political spectrum) to try to "prove" that they are somehow morally superior in one way or another. Using a line item on a tax return without considering anything else on it is worthless, especially with our ridiculously complicated tax code.

Last edited by sonofghandi on 09 Apr 2014, 9:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

Please allow me to quote myself. I'm a man of ill health and poor taste:

Oh, and last time I checked, these fine upstanding organizations are all 501(c)(3) organizations:

American Family Association
Florida Family Association
Focus on The Family
Exodus International (now defunct, apparently)
Family Research Council
Alliance Defending Freedom
Abiding Truth Ministries

... So someone must be giving them charitable donations. How heart-warming.

Money laundering is still a charitable contribution! How can you be generous to others if you can't be generous to yourself!?

There's more to identifying with conservatives or liberals than just income. It could be just a matter of associating oneself with the group they personally find overall less abhorrent.

[quote="khaoz"]It's not how much you give, but how much you care that matters. Giving is not all about money. Giving is about love and caring. How much would Conservatives be giving if there was not a tax write off to be gained? You can tell by how Conservatives treat the poor, the sick and the elderly how much they actually care. And quite frankly, bragging about how much one gives to charity is hardly an act of virtue. That makes the "giving" more about the giver than about the recipient. I think the Bible has some teachings about that particular behaviorism. That is, if the right wing revisionists have not already removed the teachings from the Bible that illuminate their hypocrisy.[/quote

That is a good question. A statistic study of the participation in volunteer activity by people of various political stripes would tell us who -cares- more. Hands on time, face to face contact between the helper and the helpee would be a good measure of such care. I would like to know how much blood is donated by folks of various political varieties. Giving a pint of blood or a bag full of platelets is a good measure of how much one cares.

ruveyn

Also from the study:

So it's more than just a token gesture of tossing a measly few bucks in just for show or some half ass money laundering opportunity like some would have us believe.

You mean they actually have blood?
How does he know how much blood they give? I don't think they ask about your political party when you donate.

And again you fail to take demographics into consideration. Christians are more likely to donate time and blood, in large part due to organization, not individuality. You also must consider that donating time to charity includes things like volunteering to head a youth ministry, teach Sunday School, help at the church bake sale, go on mission trips to Africa to fight homosexuality, or doing voluntary admin work for a sanctity of marriage organization.

Giving blood is probably the most ridiculous measure. The liberal demographics are significantly more likely to be disqualified from donation. You cannot donate if you are a man who has ever had sexual contact with another man, have ever been to prison, or if you have hepatitis or HIV -which affect the urban poor at significantly higher rates. You cannot donate if you are pregnant and are not eligible for 6 weeks after giving birth. You also cannot donate for 12 months after a piercing (with some exceptions) or getting a tattoo (although these are less and less signs of a liberal than they once were). Not to mention the fact that it is the elderly who donate the most blood by far. If you want to play with some skewed stats, why don't you mention that liberals are more likely to donate plasma?

I will say again, basing your opinion on one's morality based on a single tiny bit of a tax return that can be affected by literally thousands of factors is a complete waste of time. It would make slightly more sense to divide the categories into religious or non-religious, but that still does not address the somewhat arbitrary definitions of what is charitable. Dividing the population into two black or white opposing camps and trying to say one is better than the other is absurd (and somewhat dangerous).

giving charity does not make conservatism true. the religious also like to brag about they give more charity than atheists as if that prove the existence of their god.

Dick Cheney has two hearts. Maybe even more. Therefore, more blood to donate!

Are you sure that's not crude oil in his veins?
I will take my hat off to blood donors.Needles scare me,I have to look away when I get a shot or blood drawn.I know I should donate.I'll admit to being a scaredy cat when it comes to needles.Just seeing one in my mind creeps me out.

What makes the giving more about the giver than about the recipient is when you claim that caring is more important than the help. If you are starving to death, $100 from a jerk is going to be a lot more help than $10 from someone who is nice. The attitude of the giver doesn't negate the difference in value. Your children aren't going to care one bit about your love if you aren't feeding them.