“This book shows that four forces in modern American life are primarily responsible for making people charitable. These forces are religion, skepticism about the government in economic life, strong families, and personal entrepreneurism.” – Who Really Cares
In 2 Corinthians 9:7, as Apostle Paul addressed the people of Corinth on alms, he wrote: “Each of you should give what you have decided in your heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” Religious affiliation is the number one determining factor for charitable giving. In fact, all religions give more than their secular counterparts. In America, with its founding principles in Christianity, it should not be surprising that in an average year, seventy-five percent of Americans donate to charity, while more than half volunteer their time. Yet, of all the monies given, less than a third goes to the church, with most allocated for secular needs.
When it comes to voluntary giving, who gives and why is deeply divided along political lines. Republicans, who remain largely religious, give significantly more to charity for reasons of duty and faith. Democrats, meanwhile, who are increasingly hostile to the ideas and practices of religion, tend to give less. In fact, there is plenty of evidence to support this gap.
IRS data from 2016 shows the states with the largest average charitable donations are WY, AR, UT, SD, and TN, all red states. The five states with the smallest average contributions were the mostly blue states of WI, NJ, HI, ME, and RI. This disparity between political groups is largely centered around beliefs in the role of government in eradicating poverty and inequality. Those who would like to reduce the size and scope of government, give the most to charity. For them, private charity provides better outcomes than trusting the government with increased tax money that is all too often used politically.
On the other side, those who believe it is the government’s role to make people equal, give very little to private charity. Instead, they view public aid as not only a substitute for charity but a means to absolve them from further charitable obligations. In fact, creating equality of outcomes is more important to them than eliminating poverty. And since they maintain that poverty is systemic and not the fault of the poor, equality should be formally corrected, and not left to the whims of the people. Yet, the government has no money, except for what is taken from some and given to others. Therefore, coercive measures must be taken to accomplish this means of equality. It’s also fair to note that those who support government assistance are typically net recipients, not net payers.
What it really comes down to, is the left does not like the idea of individuals allocating resources on their own. During the Obama Administration, several attempts were made to reduce the tax deductibility of charitable gifts. Why? Because government hates competition. Money given altruistically to charities makes the need for government and their programs less necessary. Unfortunately, the government is like a bad charity, that uses the majority of tax revenues to run its bureaucracy, with little leftover for those in need. When government grows, charity withers. Lowering taxes would allow people to keep more of their own money and direct it where they see fit. If the charity is bad, they can suspend their giving. When the government is bad, it is impossible to opt out.
In Arthur Brooks’ 2006 book, “Who Really Cares”, Brooks uses empirical data to show how the political left is not the most giving individuals in America, despite their constant claims. Instead, those most likely to give to both charitable organizations and volunteer their time are the religious, those with strong family bonds who believe in personal responsibility, and those who advocate for small government. Brooks also reveals why private giving is mostly unheard of in Europe, due not only to their long history of reliance on the public sector but also their growing lack of religion. And how this dismissal of private charity has negatively affected their nations culturally. A foretaste of our own future if we continue down this secular road.
Charity is not only important to the overall prosperity of an individual or community, but also to the economic prosperity of a nation and its ability to stay free. Changes in the tax laws, most recently in 2017, saw an increase in the standard deductions, which in turn, created a decrease in the number of Americans who itemize their returns. While tax incentives alone don’t determine whether someone donates, it affects giving nonetheless, in both a reduction in charitable giving and church tithing. This reflects a troubling shift in the culture of giving, so important to a free society. Robert Putnam, in his book, “Bowling Alone”, shares his concern over the crumbling of social capital when personal giving and involvement in the community dwindles. Acts of reciprocity are critical to the fabric of a nation, while an absence of trust and connections leads to a weakening of both the economy and society at large.
There are philosophical differences over the role of government in the handling of poverty and inequality that increasingly divide us into two Americas. But private giving is an individual decision that reflects personal ethics and morality. Democrats love to publicly declare their concern for the poor; however, if you look at the data, they are largely compassionate in name only. It is not benevolence to take from one and give to another. What counts is that which comes from one’s own hand. It may be true that God prefers a “cheerful” giver, but no doubt, God also loves people who give.
Comments