Contributors

Monday, August 20, 2012

The Generosity Gap


A new study claims that religious people and Republican-leaning states give more money to charity than the non-religious. Like most such studies there are some picky details that undermine the entire gist of the report.

The study found:
The most generous state was Utah, where residents gave 10.6 percent of their discretionary income to charity. Next were Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and South Carolina. The least generous was New Hampshire, at 2.5 percent, followed by Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
Hmm... 10.6%. Why does 10% sound so familiar?
In Mormon teachings, for instance, Latter Day Saints are required to pay a 10% tithe to remain church members in good standing, which helps explain the high giving rate in heavily-Mormon Utah.
In other words, the people who contribute the most to "charity" are actually giving their money to their church, which threatens them with eternal damnation if they don't fork over the cash. This is like the bad old days when the Catholic Church offered "indulgences" to the wealthy, in which their "pardoner" would hold their soul hostage for the sins they had confessed, exchanging cash to avoid harsh penance.

Giving money to a church isn't charity. It's primarily an insurance plan for your immortal soul. It's also a fee-for-service arrangement that pays for the minister to act as an adviser and weekly stand-up comic. It's mostly used to pay for mortgages, building maintenance, operating expenses, and salaries, and sometimes subsidizes day care and education for church members. In large church organizations the local franchises send money off to headquarters to maintain the central hierarchy in the style to which it is accustomed and round up more customers ("missions"). Appeals for money for actual charitable works, such as the "poor box" and assistance for natural disasters, are made separately from the normally expected donations.

In other words, churches are and always have been big businesses. The ascendance of brazen money-grubbing televangelists is simply the logical extension of the model.

The article doesn't have enough detail to know for sure, but the numbers in Utah suggest that charitable giving is pretty much the same across the country, if you discount contributions to churches, or at least the portion that used for hierarchical overhead and services provided directly back to customers.

So it doesn't seem that the unchurched and Democrats are any less generous. In addition:
Alan Wolfe, a political science professor at Boston College, said it's wrong to link a state's religious makeup with its generosity. People in less religious states are giving in a different way by being more willing to pay higher taxes so the government can equitably distribute superior benefits, Wolfe said. And the distribution is based purely on need, rather than religious affiliation or other variables, said Wolfe, also head of the college's Boisi Center for Religion and Public Life.
People who live states with higher taxes fund the support infrastructure for better education, better roads and public welfare. That helps all people regardless of race, color or creed. Doesn't that seem more generous?

9 comments:

6Kings said...

Government efficiency of charitable giving: 30%

Private Charities: 65%

Charity efficiency

Why are Private Charities more efficient than government agencies?

Benevolent citizens naturally wish a large fraction of their donations to reach the
needy, and many will not keep donating to an agency that does not
accomplish that. Donors can select among private nonprofit charities, and competition between charities for donations tends to insure
efficiency. Public aid agencies, in contrast, are budgeted their funds
by Congress, which obtains them through compulsory taxation.
These agencies are not under competitive pressures to keep costs
down that are remotely equivalent to those of private charities.


Now we move to Christian (or religious) charities which are included in a Forbes study:

The Forbes study ranked the 200 largest U.S. charities based on three criteria: fundraising efficiency (the difference between income and expenditures), charitable commitment (amount of funds directly diverted to charity) and donor dependency.
Four out of the five charities that received a perfect rating in both fundraising efficiency and charitable commitment are Christian organizations. The average for fundraising efficiency for the whole list is 90 percent; 86 percent for charitable commitment.


Christian Charities and Forbes Source

Three of the top four Christian charities are operating at or above $100 million, which may show that the U.S. Christian community is philanthropically active and that, indeed, non-religious Americans feel comfortable donating to faith-based charities.

So, If I wanted to give where it would benefit people the most:

Government - ~30%
General Private - ~65%
Top Charities including Religious based organizations - ~85%

Hmm, seems your government solution is the biggest waste of money. We already knew that but you still push it. Why?

rld said...

Because they believe it.

juris imprudent said...

People in less religious states are giving in a different way by being more willing to pay higher taxes so the government can equitably distribute superior benefits, Wolfe said.

Now that is comic genius.

Mark Ward said...

Why?

Suppose the government was not available to help people in any way, shape, or form. Do you honestly think, 6Kings, that private charities have the infrastructure to provide a social safety net for our population? If so, how exactly would that work?

6Kings said...

Do they currently have infrastructure to do that? Of course not but neither would/should reform change our current social safety net so fast that it couldn't be addressed.

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

I just don't have a comment to add to this.

Mark Ward said...

If private charities could do what the government does, I'd have no problem saying that federal government social programs should be done away with entirely. In fact, we could be moving in that direction with entities like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation who have been stoked recently with money from Mark Zuckerberg and Warren Buffet.

Imagine what would happen if a just a small percent of the 65 trillion dollars of private wealth in this country too over the role of the social safety net. It would certainly end many complaints on all sides.

Hey juris, I heard the government was declaring that robots were to be constructed for the express purpose of stealing our luggage.

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

I heard the government was declaring that robots were to be constructed for the express purpose of stealing our luggage.

That just isn't as funny as the other stuff you've been posting.

Maybe I need to leave for vacation.

-just dave said...

Well, you can't argue with logic like that. Mom always said, "Always wear clean underwear & never argue with crazy people."