AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@mysteryman,

The dichotomy is stunning; good people, evil government. And that satisfies your sense of morality.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

A typical Socialistic answer. In fact, a NAZI answer.

In the preface of the book---Secret of Santa Victoria--the Nazi Colonel says:

"The State is supreme. The State takes care of the individual who is really helpless without the state"

The mayor Bombolini answers--"In the long run, the only thing that really matters is the sacredness of the individual".

Diest TKO would have done well running a GULAG!!

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

Mysteryman-You are correct--Note:
PRESS RELEASES
Charitable Donations by Americans Reach Record High

By Jeffrey Thomas
USINFO Staff Writer

June 27, 2007

Washington -- Americans increased their charitable donations significantly in 2006 to more than $295 billion -- a record, according to a study released June 25 by the Giving USA Foundation, which reports on charitable contributions.

The overwhelming majority of this money was donated by individuals, not corporations or foundations, according to the chairman of Giving USA, Richard Jolly. Donations from individuals, including bequests, accounted for 83.3 percent of total giving last year, or $245.8 billion, he told USINFO.

“The total amount of money that was given to nonprofit institutions is remarkable,” Jolly said. “What we see is when people feel engaged, when they feel a need is legitimate, when they are asked to support it, they do.” Americans have a long tradition of charitable giving and volunteerism -- the donation of time and labor on behalf of a cause. When disasters happen or a social need arises, government clearly has a responsibility, Jolly said. “But it’s also obvious Americans believe they, too, can make a difference, and they reflect that in terms of giving away a lot of money.”

The United States is “a land of charity,” says Arthur Brooks, an expert on philanthropy and a professor at Syracuse University’s Maxwell School, who sees charitable giving and volunteerism as the signal characteristic of Americans. In 2006, Americans donated 2.2 percent of their average disposable, or after-tax, income, a figure above the 40-year average of 1.8 percent. Brooks told USINFO that he sees over the past 50 years “a trend toward greater charitable giving” in the United States.

Jolly noted that 2005 was an “atypical” year because of the unusual number of major disasters, including the tsunamis in Asia, the earthquake in Pakistan, and hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the United States. Comparing non disaster giving in 2006 with non disaster giving in 2005, “what we see is growth, after adjusting for inflation, of about 3.2 percent, and that’s a significant level of growth,” Jolly said.

Corporate contributions in 2006 declined 10.5 percent from the previous year, to an estimated $12.72 billion, a figure representing 4.3 percent of total donations. Part of the reason for the decline, according to Giving USA, was that corporations sharply increased their charitable contributions in 2005 because of the disasters that year, but then did not face the same level of calamity-driven need in 2006.

Other major categories of giving include foundation grants ($36.5 billion, 12.4 percent of the total) and charitable bequests ($22.91 billion, 7.8 percent). The two largest categories of donations were to religious organizations, which received 32.8 percent of the total donations ($96.82 billion), and educational institutions, which received 13.9 percent ($40.98 billion). The fastest-growing field for donations was the arts, culture and humanities, which garnered 4.3 percent of the total ($12.51 billion), an increase of 6.5 percent over 2005.

MEGAGIFTS AND THE SMALL GIVER

A significant trend in charitable giving in 2006 was the giving of large sums, most famously investor Warren Buffet’s pledge to donate $30 billion over 20 years to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The Giving USA figures reflect the first installment of Buffet’s gift -- $1.9 billion -- as well as another $2 billion in megagifts by other wealthy individuals. These megagifts amount to a little more than 1 percent of total giving in 2006. Jolly sees the trend toward megagifts as positive “and something we want to watch going forward.”

At the same time, Jolly emphasized that 65 percent of U.S. households with incomes of $100,000 or less make charitable contributions. “Certainly, these very large megagifts are important, but so, too, are gifts from individuals who are not extraordinarily wealthy. We wouldn’t have the total we have were it not for gifts from across the spectrum of wealth.”

Americans long have preferred to donate their money through the private sector or to private charities. Of the $122.8 billion of foreign aid provided by Americans in 2005, the most current data available, $95.5 billion, or 79 percent, came from private foundations, corporations, voluntary organizations, universities, religious organizations and individuals, according to the latest annual Index of Global Philanthropy, which is published by a Washington research organization, the Center for Global Prosperity at the Hudson Institute.

The Giving USA report does not take into account the value of contributions Americans make in terms of time and labor. More than 61 million Americans volunteered for charitable and national service organizations in 2006, and about half of all Americans participate in volunteer activities each year, according to Brooks. Volunteerism is “a major cultural phenomenon in the U.S.,” Brooks says.
-End-

(USINFO is produced by the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)

0 Replies

Mysteryman_ It is clear that JTT's rabid Anti-Americanism leads him to error.

It is quite easy to find the data. As you pointed out, the USA is the most charitable country.

Note:

International comparisons of charitable giving
This report contributes to the understanding of charitable giving in an international context by comparing levels of individual giving within a number of different countries.

By measuring the charitable giving of countries against their national wealth, giving levels are brought into a comparable format. The findings reveal that only the USA’s charitable giving is equivalent to over 1% of its GDP (Gross Domestic Product). The UK is in second place with 0.73% of its GDP going to charitable giving.

Download a copy of the report (.pdf, 1MB )

end of quote

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

You are apparently confusing foreign aid, which is govt controlled and govt given,
with the donations to charity given by PRIVATE CITIZENS.

I am strictly speaking about how private citizens donate to charity,
I am NOT talking about govt programs or foreign aid.

There is a difference.

Indeed there IS.

In this case, the extortionist is the damned government,
that acts by UNCONSTITUTIONAL USURPATION to steal the money.

NO WHERE in the US Constitution is government granted ANY authority,
however slight, to steal property from Americans and give the loot to aliens.

A possible exception to that is application of the war power
(when we r at war) to aid alien allies.

David

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Acknowledging Debra's comments and declaring them to be the most glaring example of utter BS we've heard today. But what do you expect from a group who presumes the power to take as much cheese as it wants from those who manufacture and/or earn their own cheese for the purpose of redistribution to whomever will keep them voted into power?

Agreeing with MM & George that Americans, more often than not tne more conservative Americans, are the most generous people on Earth. MACs, and actually most conservatives, however, believe that giving their own money is true benevolence. Liberals seem to think that taking MY money and giving it to others is the definition of benevolence.

Horse ****. If charitable donations were not tax deductible, Conservatives would not charitably donate at 1/10th the rate that they currently do. Enough with the faux-altruistic ****.

Your problem is an idiotic black/white dichotomy view of the world, Fox. You claim that Conservatives are the most generous people on Earth and that Liberals are all a bunch of thieves, only interested in staying in power... is this a serious claim?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

There is a huge distortion when figuring who gives to charities. This is because, under the Internal Revenue Code, gifts to the church are treated as charitable. In reality, they are not charitable. The vast majority of the dollars given to the church go to compensation for church employees, building and grounds upkeep, cost of parochial schools, etc., with virtually nothing going to help the general public.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Remember when GW Bush tried to get Turkey to use their airports for the grand sum of $4 billion, and they refused it? That was for "war" purposes; there was nothing altruistic about that!

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Horse ****. If charitable donations were not tax deductible, Conservatives would not charitably donate at 1/10th the rate that they currently do. Enough with the faux-altruistic ****.

Do you really know that to be true? If so how?

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Your problem is an idiotic black/white dichotomy view of the world, Fox. You claim that Conservatives are the most generous people on Earth and that Liberals are all a bunch of thieves, only interested in staying in power... is this a serious claim

I agree that Foxfyre overstated her case a bit. However a cynic might opine that conservatives are willing to give a modest portion of their earnings to charity in return for the associated tax deduction, while liberals are willing to give a much larger portion of the conservatives' money to themselves and others through taxation.

With respect to the question of foreign aid and overseas charitable giving by individuals and private organizations, my point was that though U.S. government foreign aid, expressed as a % of GDP is small compared to that of most European governments, if private remittances are included in the respective totals the United States turns out to be among the leaders.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Just how does that translate what GW Bush did? He spent more than revenue, and transferred the deficit to our children and grandchildren. Also, during democratic administrations, "most" Americans benefited, while only the rich benefited under republican administrations. The middle class and the poor barely kept up with inflation while their productivity increased during GWBushs tenure, and the benefit went to the CEOs and investors. Now, even the investors have lost from the GWBush debacle.

The subject of "donations" doesn't mean a hill of beans when most everybody goes broke. Donations to charities are way down while more are looking for food and shelter. With the current trend in job and home losses, we can expect things to get much worse. Those who were expecting to retire soon will have changed their plans - if they have a choice. Not many will.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I think you are oversimplifying the issues you are pushing here and leaving out very significant but relevant data.

I won't argue former President Bush's failure to limit Federal spending or the complicity of the Congress (both Republican and Democrat) in wasteful public spending. Further, I won't dispute the argument that the original Gulf War (1991) was a great error and that it set the stage for our subsequent (successful but very costly) intervention in Iraq.

However you omit the huge increases to the national debt that occurred in the Johnson and Carter administrations and the lasting effect of the Reagan stimulus in increasing both government revenues and public prosperity. Indeed it was this and the combined efforts of a Republican Congress and a Centrist Clinton that limited the accumulation of public debt during the Clinton years.

Finally you ignore some fundamental economic realities. Increased productivity yields higher profits and increased investment leading to the creation of new industries and new jobs. The alternative is stagnation and ultimate inflation. We had a dose of that in the Carter years and it was not good.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Exaggerated for effect maybe, but overstated? Really? You honestly don't think MACs (Modern American Conservatives) are far more likely to see charity/benevolence as giving of their own resources/time/money while liberals are far more likely to see charity/benevolence as a function of government? Don't you see charity as taking money out of your pocket and giving it to somebody in need? Just look at the posts on this thread. The liberals aren't saying they should give more. It should be the government who gives more; i.e. take more of my money to give to others.

There are many many commentators etc. who have agreed with Arhtur Brooks recent exhaustive study on this subject including Kristoff and you don't get much more liberal left than him. Here's George Will's take:

Quote:

March 27, 2008
Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will

WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
More. . . .
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

(to C.I.)
I think you are oversimplifying the issues you are pushing here and leaving out very significant but relevant data.

I won't argue former President Bush's failure to limit Federal spending or the complicity of the Congress (both Republican and Democrat) in wasteful public spending. Further, I won't dispute the argument that the original Gulf War (1991) was a great error and that it set the stage for our subsequent (successful but very costly) intervention in Iraq.

However you omit the huge increases to the national debt that occurred in the Johnson and Carter administrations and the lasting effect of the Reagan stimulus in increasing both government revenues and public prosperity. Indeed it was this and the combined efforts of a Republican Congress and a Centrist Clinton that limited the accumulation of public debt during the Clinton years.

Finally you ignore some fundamental economic realities. Increased productivity yields higher profits and increased investment leading to the creation of new industries and new jobs. The alternative is stagnation and ultimate inflation. We had a dose of that in the Carter years and it was not good.

I don't disagree with your assessment here--we might discuss that First Gulf War a bit but you may be right about that too--and I think we both agree that these current spending bills (TARP 1 & 2 plus the stimulus bill) are unprecedented by ANY yardstick of the past:

I have been tuning in to Glenn Beck now and then because he does provide a different prospective than some of the other commentators and, while I think he is probably excessively alarmist--he thinks we're headed for a depression of unprecedented proportions--it is good to know what all the perspectives out there are. If he is correct in the information in this video, however, it is scary:

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

They are all at fault, because what they failed to do was to make sure government ensure the security of our economic health.

Your assumption that only profit ensures increased investments that leads to the creation of new industries and jobs, but it was at the sacrifice of not sharing that wealth with the workers while increasing the pay and benefits of CEOs and other officers.

If increased investment leads to new industries and jobs, how do you explain the current economies of the world? Those selling the mortgage instruments increased their profit (or so they thought), and ended up destroying our economy. Profit must be balanced with some equality in pay while ensuring that our financial industry remains secure from fraud and greed.

Nobody ever claimed that investments are not necessary to grow any economy; certainly not me!

0 Replies

Cicerone Imposter( without posting any evidence or documentation--just issuing his usual verbal flatulence) wrote:

Your assumption that only profit ensures increased investments that leads to the creation of new industries and jobs, but it was at the sacrifice of not sharing that wealth with the workers while increasing the pay and benefits of CEOs and other officers.

What Cicerone Imposter does not know is that his bullshit about the pay and benefits of other officers and the poverty of the workers is dead wrong. The workers of the US are the envy of the rest of the world and always have been.

Cicerone Imposter, who is too stupid to reference--does not know the following:

"Declining production costs allowed Ford to cut automoblie prices --six times between 1921 and 1925. The cost of a new Ford was reduced to $290 dollars--this amount was less than three months wages to an American worker...Henry Ford introduced a minimum wage of $5.oo in 1914-Twice what most workers earned and shortened the working day from nine hours to eight hours. Twelve years later, Ford reduced his work week from six days to five days a week.
SOurce-Digital History.

But Cicerone Imposter's favorites, the main support of the workers, the Cominern told American Communists that the "AFL must be smashed to pieces".

What Cicerone Imposter does not know is that much of today's poverty stems from bad choices and self-destructive behavior--Today's poor, with their cell phones,. DVD players, air conditioners, cars, Medicade, free lunches, and food stamps WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED MIDDLE CLASS FIFTY YEARS AGO!

1 Reply

Cicerone Imposter wrote_

what GW Bush did? He spent more than revenue, and transferred the deficit to our children and grandchildren.

Cicerone Imposter is apparently highly ignorant of what has happened in the last month. Obama has made Bush look like a piker. Bush's deficit is four times smaller than the Messiah's.

0 Replies

@Advocate,

I really don't know if the distortion is so VAST, as Advocate claims. A website, which is obviously devoted to investigating Church receipts says:

Thursday, July 24, 2008
God and Money - The Church and the IRS
A recent report heralded the fact that US donors gave more in private contributions this past year than ever before - over $300 billion. The people of the US are considered the most generous on the planet in their voluntary charitable giving (as opposed to what could be called involuntary giving, i.e. taxation!). We give more than double the amount of money (as measured by Gross Domestic Product)the people of the next most generous country give. Furthermore, the largest portion of that $300 billion goes to our houses of worship (referred to as churches by the IRS).

There are an estimated 350,000 churches in the US today and about half (the largest and most well established I suspect) opt to register themselves with the IRS. However, here is the first distinction from most other public charities - registering with the IRS is optional, not required - regardless of the church's size. For other public charities you must have less than $5,000 in gross receipts to be tax exempt without registering.

Then we get to the second and more troubling distinction. Every other type of public charity over $25,000 or more in annual gross receipts must file a report to the IRS (called a 990) every year. The churches are under no obligation to do so and the vast majority do not. In other words, over $100 billion dollars (that is an estimated amount, since we can not know for sure) was donated to churches last year and most do not report any information to the IRS on how much was taken in and what they did with the money. Doesn't that seem wrong?

We at Charity Navigator are able to rate charities based on the information provided on the IRS 990 forms. Since almost all churches do not file the form, it is impossible for us to evaluate over a third of the private contributions that go to charities. How can you as a donor be confident that your money is being spent for the purposes for which you gave it? We believe that, as with the charities that we rate, the vast number of churches do the right thing. However, how are we as a society going to be able to hold to account those who are not doing right with the money we give? Given human nature, when this amount of money is involved, you better believe we have got some bad apples in the bunch.

Anyway, until such time as the laws change on this (some are predicting it will coincide with when pigs fly) we strongly encourage you who attend church to urge your religious leaders to opt in and file those 990s every year. We implore the church community as a whole to provide the transparency and accountability that is the hallmark of management best practices.
Posted by Ken Berger at 11:50 AM

CAREFUL NOTE MUST BE MADE OF THE SENTENCE
WE BELIEVE THAT THE VAST NUMBER OF CHURCHES DO THE RIGHT THING.

0 Replies

@genoves,

genoves misses the whole point about "sharing the wealth." Facts, not my opinion, have shown that the middle class and the poor didn't even keep up with inflation during the eight years of Bush's presidency. Just a simple web search will prove that statement.

genoves is an idiot; first order. He seems to miss the simplest of facts and common knowledge. Go fight your wars with somebody else, jerk.

Quote:

But we still have challenges, and amid this country’s strong economic expansion, many Americans
simply aren’t feeling the benefits. Many aren’t seeing significant increases in their take-home pay.
Their increases in wages are being eaten up by high energy prices and rising health-care costs,
among others.
"Remarks by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, August 1, 2006
In his first major speech after joining the administration, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged
the economic evidence that many Americans, including many middle class families, are struggling in this
economy. Data such as the following may explain why the Treasury Secretary did not echo the view
expressed by the President in an April radio address, that “America’s economy is strong and benefiting all
Americans:”
Sluggish Job Growth
• Employment growth under President Bush has averaged just 45,000 jobs per month, when up to
150,000 jobs per month are needed to absorb new workers coming into the labor force. Job
growth under President Clinton averaged 237,000 jobs per month.
• After losing 2.7 million jobs between January 2001 and August 2003, the economy has been
creating jobs, but only 119,000 jobs per month were created in the past five months.
Falling Real Wages
• Real (inflation-adjusted) wages have been falling since 2003. The real average hourly earnings of
nonagricultural production or nonsupervisory workers were 1.6 percent lower in August 2006 than
they were when job losses peaked in August 2003.
• Real wages were stagnant in 2003, and fell during 2004, 2005, and the first eight months of 2006.
• The distribution of earnings has become more unequal since the end of 2000.
• The Median usual weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers were $659 at the end of 2005, 0.9 percent lower after inflation than they were at the end of 2000. (Half of all full-time workers have usual weekly earnings greater than the median and half have earnings less than the
median.)
• Real earnings fell 2.1 percent at the 10th percentile ($316 per week at the end of 2005) but rose 4.0 percent at the 90th percentile ($1,535 per week at the end of 2005).
• From 1995 to 2000, in contrast, real median usual weekly earnings of full-time workers rose 7.3 percent and earnings growth was substantial throughout the earnings distribution.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I would appear that the always unsourced Cicerone Imposter is again issuing unsourced verbal flatulence. He doesn't know that he is dead wrong when he says that US corporations pay some of the lowest corporate tax of any developed country. If Cicerone Imposter were not so limited, he might be able to try to rebut the following, but he will not because he can not. For those who are interested in the correct figures --Note:

Comparing U.S. State Corporate Taxes to the OECD

OECD Overall Rank
Country/State
Federal Rate Adjusted
Top State Corporate Tax Rate
Combined Federal and State Rate (Adjusted) (a)

Iowa
35
12
41.6

Pennsylvania
35
9.99
41.5

Minnesota
35
9.8
41.4

Massachusetts
35
9.5
41.2

Alaska
35
9.4
41.1

New Jersey
35
9.36
41.1

Rhode Island
35
9
40.9

West Virginia
35
9
40.9

Maine
35
8.93
40.8

Vermont
35
8.9
40.8

California
35
8.84
40.7

Delaware
35
8.7
40.7

Indiana
35
8.5
40.5

New Hampshire
35
8.5
40.5

Wisconsin
35
7.9
40.1

Nebraska
35
7.81
40.1

Idaho
35
7.6
39.9

New Mexico
35
7.6
39.9

Connecticut
35
7.5
39.9

New York
35
7.5
39.9

Kansas
35
7.35
39.8

Illinois
35
7.3
39.7

Maryland
35
7
39.6

North Dakota
35
7
39.6

1
Japan
30
11.56
39.54

Arizona
35
6.968
39.5

North Carolina
35
6.9
39.5

Montana
35
6.75
39.4

Oregon
35
6.6
39.3

2
United States
35
6.57
39.27

Arkansas
35
6.5
39.2

Tennessee
35
6.5
39.2

*Washington
35
6.4
39.2

Hawaii
35
6.4
39.2

3
Germany
26.38
17.0
38.9

*Michigan
35
6
38.9

Georgia
35
6
38.9

Kentucky
35
6
38.9

Oklahoma
35
6
38.9

Virginia
35
6
38.9

Florida
35
5.5
38.6

Louisiana 35 8 38.5
Missouri 35 6.25 38.4

Ohio
35
5.1
38.3

Mississippi
35
5
38.3

South Carolina
35
5
38.3

Utah
35
5
38.3

Colorado
35
4.63
38.0

Alabama 35 6.5 37.8
4
Canada
22.1
14
36.1

*Texas
35
1.6
36.0

Nevada
35
0
35.0

South Dakota
35
0
35.0

Wyoming
35
0
35.0

5
France
34.43
0
34.4

6
Belgium
33.99
0
33.99

7
Italy
33
0
33

8
New Zealand
33
0
33

9
Spain
32.5
0
32.5

10
Luxembourg
22.88
7.5
30.38

11
Australia
30
0
30

12
United Kingdom
30
0
30

13
Mexico
28
0
28

14
Norway
28
0
28

15
Sweden
28
0
28

16
Korea
25
2.5
27.5

17
Portugal
25
1.5
26.5

18
Finland
26
0
26

19
Netherlands
25.5
0
25.5

20
Austria
25
0
25

21
Denmark
25
0
25

22
Greece
25
0
25

23
Czech Republic
24
0
24

24
Switzerland
8.50
14.64
21.32

25
Hungary
20
0
20

26
Turkey
20
0
20

27
Poland
19
0
19

28
Slovak Republic
19
0
19

29
Iceland
18
0
18

30
Ireland
12.5
0
12.5

*Michigan, Texas and Washington have gross receipts taxes rather than traditional corporate income taxes. For comparison purposes, we converted the gross receipts taxes into an effective CIT rate. See footnote 2 for methodology.

(a) Combined rate adjusted for federal deduction of state taxes paid

Source: OECD, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/26/56/33717459.xls

1 Reply

Mysteryman_ It is clear that JTT's rabid Anti-Americanism leads him to error.

It is quite easy to find the data. As you pointed out, the USA is the most charitable country.

Note:

International comparisons of charitable giving
This report contributes to the understanding of charitable giving in an international context by comparing levels of individual giving within a number of different countries.

By measuring the charitable giving of countries against their national wealth, giving levels are brought into a comparable format. The findings reveal that only the USA’s charitable giving is equivalent to over 1% of its GDP (Gross Domestic Product). The UK is in second place with 0.73% of its GDP going to charitable giving.

Download a copy of the report (.pdf, 1MB )

end of quote

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know