Why the US is different (and better?)

michaels

Thanks - I have read the article but do not agree with several of its premises and feel it also looks for reasons to downplay and belittle something that should be seen in a positive light which is part of my argument that the two countries have a fundamentally different perspective.

For example that giving funds to charity reduces govt revenues - yes this is true but govt spending also has an agenda linked to electoral cycles and not strictly to provide the most good to the most people and quite rightly govts are concerned with their own citizens first whereas philanthropists can take a global view.

Similarly if the rules allow a company to run itself in a manner to minimise its tax burden then why criticise it for doing so - the company itself exists to provide its investors with a return on that investment and it is for the investors to decide how to distribute that return, in the US this is often via charitable donation.

adouglasmhor wrote: »

Try this then Michael, it's a compelling argument thatsuch things are not the best way of doing it. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/aug/05/philanthropy-does-not-pay-taxes

And for generalli (who you thanked for calling me a penis but in coarser terms). Try that to my face you cowardly toad.

Generali

michaels wrote: »

Thanks - I ave read the article but do not agree with several of its premises and feel it also looks for reasons to downplay and belittle something that should be seen in a positive light which is part of my argument that the two countries have a fundamentally different perspective.

For example that giving funds to charity reduces govt revenues - yes this is true but govt spending also has an agenda linked to electoral cycles and not strictly to provide the most good to the most people and quite rightly govts are concerned with their own citizens first whereas philanthropists can take a global view.

Similarly if the rules allow a company to run itself in a manner to minimise its tax burden then why criticise it for doing so - the company itself exists to provide its investors with a return on that investment and it is for the investors to decide how to distribute that return, in the US this is often via charitable donation.

IMO if you're giving away 90% of your wealth then unless you are living under a confiscatory tax system there will be no tax benefit compared to keeping the lot for yourself and your family.

The US does not have a confiscatory tax regime - tax rates across the economy are a little under 15% of the value of output.

Really2

How are the UK public doing in terms of donations to the Pakistan disaster compared to the US?

Generali

Really2 wrote: »

How are the UK public doing in terms of donations to the Pakistan disaster compared to the US?

At a guess not as well in direct donations. Via churches and charities that provide relief as needed? That may be a different picture.

michaels

I am going to completely guess here but I would imagine that UK individuals with proportionately much stronger direct links to Pakistan than the US (through immigration, history etc) are likely to give proportionately more than the US - just as the US are likely to have given more to Haiti?

Really2 wrote: »

How are the UK public doing in terms of donations to the Pakistan disaster compared to the US?

adouglasmhor

Generali wrote: »

IMO if you're giving away 90% of your wealth then unless you are living under a confiscatory tax system there will be no tax benefit compared to keeping the lot for yourself and your family.

The US does not have a confiscatory tax regime - tax rates across the economy are a little under 15% of the value of output.

In my post about Bill gates I never mentioned his benefiting finanialy through it one way or another.
The possible reason for him not being charitably active to any great extent before 1999 is that he has a very extemely focused personality/mindset - basicaly very single minded about a narrow spectrum of interests. It probably never occured to him untill it was pointed out to him.

But as an example of a benefactor he shows the pitfalls as well as the gains.

Really2

Generali wrote: »

At a guess not as well in direct donations. Via churches and charities that provide relief as needed? That may be a different picture.

Last I heard the UK public alone had donated £30M.
I thought it was reported we were "leading the way" and that we were the highest donators per head of population.

adouglasmhor

michaels wrote: »

Thanks - I have read the article but do not agree with several of its premises and feel it also looks for reasons to downplay and belittle something that should be seen in a positive light which is part of my argument that the two countries have a fundamentally different perspective.

For example that giving funds to charity reduces govt revenues - yes this is true but govt spending also has an agenda linked to electoral cycles and not strictly to provide the most good to the most people and quite rightly govts are concerned with their own citizens first whereas philanthropists can take a global view.

Similarly if the rules allow a company to run itself in a manner to minimise its tax burden then why criticise it for doing so - the company itself exists to provide its investors with a return on that investment and it is for the investors to decide how to distribute that return, in the US this is often via charitable donation.

So as they are private concerns giving aid, you agree it is OK for them to set their own terms and conditions?

Even if the terms and conditions are detrimental to the recipients in some way or others are excluded because of lifestyle choices or behaviours?

Really2

michaels wrote: »

I am going to completely guess here but I would imagine that UK individuals with proportionately much stronger direct links to Pakistan than the US (through immigration, history etc) are likely to give proportionately more than the US - just as the US are likely to have given more to Haiti?

But if America was better why would that matter? Surly you can't be saying now they only give if it is relevant to them?

Both countries have roughly 700,000 of Pakistani ethnic background, so you should still expect direct USA public donations to be way higher if they were more compassionate in general?

adouglasmhor

Michael you still ahve not told us what you do for charities yourself? I have in the last few years done firewalks, glasswalks and organised fund raising events as well as giving directly. I support SAMH a charity for mental health issues, the British Red Cross* and a few local charities.

*Who operate internationaly as part of the Red Cross and Red Crescent not just in Britain despite the name.