In an illuminating piece in today's Wall Street Journal (sub req), Arthur C. Brooks breaks down the results of the much-discussed survey on charitable giving:
Why does Giving America behave so differently from Non-Giving America? The answer, contrary to what you might be thinking, is not income; America's working poor give away at least as large a percentage of their incomes as the rich, and a lot more than the middle class. The charity gap is driven not by economics but by values.
Nowhere is the divide in values more on display than in religion, the frontline in our so-called "culture war." And the relationship between religion and charity is nothing short of extraordinary. The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey indicates that Americans who weekly attend a house of worship are 25 percentage points more likely to give than people who go to church rarely or never. These religious folks also give nearly four times more dollars per year than secularists, on average, and volunteer more than twice as frequently.
It is not the case that these enormous differences are due simply to religious people giving to their churches. Religious people are more charitable with all sorts of nonreligious causes as well. They are 10 percentage points likelier than secularists to give money to explicitly nonreligious charities like the United Way, and 25 points more likely to volunteer for secular groups such as the PTA. Churchgoers were far likelier in 2001 to give to 9/11-related causes. On average, people of faith give more than 50% more money each year to non-church social welfare organizations than secularists do.
A second core value affecting charity shows up in the belief citizens have about the government's role in their lives. Some Americans (about a third) believe the government should do more to reduce income differences between the rich and poor -- largely through higher taxation and social spending. Others (about 40%) do not favor greater forced income redistribution. This is a major difference in worldview -- not just about taxation, but also about the perceived duty of individuals to take personal responsibility for themselves and others. This difference affects people's likelihood of voluntarily giving to charity. The General Social Survey shows that people who oppose government income redistribution donate four times as much money each year as do redistribution supporters.
A third key value affecting charity is reflected in family life. Couples, even when they earn the same amount as single people, are more likely to give to charity, and the simple act of raising children appears to stimulate giving as well -- children help us fill the collection plate even as they drain our wallets. Further, family life is the ideal transmission mechanism for charitable values: Data show that people who see their parents behave charitably are far likelier to be charitable themselves as adults.
Don't you just love it when evidence comes along to confirm beliefs that you've long held? It's nice to see that marriage and religion, a couple of bedrocks of our civilization that have been taking a beating in recent years, are once again shown to be unqualified goods. Not just good for your personal happiness and contentment as previous studies have shown, but good for society as a whole. Maybe there is something to these traditions that have lasted for thousands of years after all.
It's also heartening to see that what conservatives have long suspected of "government as the ultimate answer" liberals is indeed true: they're more than happy to spend money to "help" others, just as long as it isn't theirs. It's easy to make yourself feel good by calling for higher taxes and more spending. It's much harder to dig into your pocket or donate your own time to do something that actually does make a difference.
Voluntary giving enriches both those who receive the benefits of the charitable act, as well as those who give. It's good for the soul. Confiscatory taking and redistribution do nothing for the one being forced to "give" and, in the long run, are damaging to the individuals purportedly being helped as well as the larger society. It's sad that the Left is still viewed as caring more about people despite years of experience and reams of evidence to the contrary.
No comments:
Post a Comment