Unfortunately, bankruptcy for a teenager would probably hamper her ability to get a college education by making it near impossible for her (or her parents) to get a loan for tuition etc.
Yup, most folks in New England are just smart enough to look for the little "D" when casting their votes. Who needs to know anything about character or issues?
Actually, homeschooled families in Germany do often have their children take the standard tests. The authorities, despite seeing high scores on these tests, still insist that the children be put in school. Thousands of dollars of fines is considered the lightest punishment the homeschooling parents face. More likely, armed policemen will show up at their house to take the children to school or simply remove the children from their home.
The Busekros' had one child removed from the home in a surprise raid by police and subjected to a battery of psychological testing. Despite the result being quite positive and normal, she was placed in a foster home. Katharina Plett was not even given the chance to prove that her children were doing well. She was simply arrested and thrown in jail. Jurgen and Rosemarie Dudek were told at their trial that they were doing a good job of homeschooling, but they were going to be fined anyways, because the law allowed no less. This was on appeal. Their first trial resulted in a three-month prison sentence for both parents.
Germany isn't just one of those kind, gentle places that only seek the slightest bit of proof that a homeschooling family is doing a decent job. It's downright brutal.
Actually, according to all the studies that have been done on the subject thus far, it is the majority of homeschooled children who are "more focused and ambitious". They also, as adults, are far more likely to engage in the political process and volunteer their time in the community.
Actually, you may be pleased to hear that not only are homeschooled kids still turning out higher than average test scores through the end of highschool, but those whose parents have only a highschool diploma do not have lower scores than those whose parents have a college education.
I'd like to take a moment and add to the socialization equation. Many children I've known who were homeschooled were taken out of public school because of the way they were treated by the other children. I am one of them. I was bullied for years. I developed regular headaches and started having anxiety attacks.
When my mother brought me home, she did her best to get me interested in extra-curricular activities that involved other children. I didn't want to do it. She finally made me go to one weekly group just so that I'd get some socialization. I spent my time in the corner, afraid of the other children. This was because of public school, not homeschool. It took me years to start regaining my confidence.
I notice you're focusing in on the ethics lessons from other religions, without addressing the tiny matter of public schools teaching children slang terms for sex acts. You don't have to be religious, Christian, Fundie Christian, or Fundie Nutcase Christian to question the wisdom in that.
Actually, homeschooling is not allowed even if you are an examined teacher. Every single homeschooling family in Germany is operating either secretly or under direct threat of fines or jail time.
In addition, the claim of criminal negligence was made despite the children all excelling at the state-administered tests. Basically, in Germany, educational negligence is defined as not having your child in a public or State-Approved private school, regardless of his or her actual achievement level.
Actually, our children are a direct result of the combination of their parents' DNA. As such, they are already shaped into our image by a process over which we had no control: the husband's eyes, the mother's body shape, even the likely birthweight of their children.
Now who is better suited to understanding and teaching a child than the people who, working together, contain all that the child contains? I am synesthetic. My child is synesthetic. Am I not as well suited to teaching him coping methods as the non-synesthetic public school teacher?
Many of the most brilliant people in the world were taught at home. Some of them, like Edison, were removed from school after flunking out. When a child is capable of creating blueprints in his head, who is better suited to help him? Someone who can do the same thing, or someone who cannot?
You've put forth a false claim here in linking the shaping of your child with beating and brainwashing him. Would you claim that you cannot braid hair without pulling it out of the scalp, or that you cannot close the snaps on clothing without crushing the metal? Of course not. There's use and there's abuse, and it's a logical fallacy to claim that one is always the other.
Do you know the Three Laws of Motion? Ever noted how a prism divides white light into color? Used a refracting telescope? Congratulations, you've been learning from Isaac Newton, a theologian.
Most of the scientific discoveries historically have been made within the structure of a religious institution, possibly because said institution has the curiosity to learn more about this world that they believe was created by a deity with structure and purpose, and they are more likely to be capable of supporting full-time scientists.
Actually, the people who "allegedly alleged" Bush's IQ as averaging around 120-126 have been estimating presidential IQ based on available documentation for decades. Most of them are licensed, educated psychologists, and would probably take offense (or at least amusement) at the notion that they have IQ's lower than 80.
"Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons."
In addition, in many cases the actual medical procedure, even if it is performed in a properly sterile environment(rare) with proper follow-up (rarer), causes scarring that makes it difficult or impossible to get pregnant again.
Actually, only one of my bits of information, the latter one, involved other countries. The others in my first answering-post involved all charity, including internal.
You claimed that lowering taxes and slimming/eliminating social programs would result in nobody helping the poor. I contend that the historical charitable-giving ethics in America are still sufficiently strong to provide for the poor. When I spoke of private contributions, I meant to show that, in America, private contributions tend to highly trump government contributions to the point where if you look only at the government we're nearly last on the list, but if you look at private we're first. I don't know what it is about Europeans and inferiority complexes, but this isn't the first time I've been accused of "exceptionalism" merely by pointing out something in the U.S. that's good...
Anyways, now we're kind of stuck, I guess. I say that Americans who follow the worldview that descended from the Protestants who came to the New World see helping the poor as their own personal responsibility, and indeed the charitable contributions from those who follow that worldview vs. those who don't, plus the difference between charitable contributions from the government vs. private individuals, can be taken as proof that this is still in effect.
You, however, seem to be arguing that since the Protestant work ethic pushed by people who remained in England proclaims that the poor are feckless and irresponsible and don't deserve help, the Protestant work ethic pushed by people in America claiming that helping the poor is everyone's responsibility will necessarily end in none of the poor being helped. I'm not sure where the logic lies here... but I might like to point out that the Reformists who stayed in England and flourished there might have had a different mindset and/or personality than those who fled for their lives. (I've studied the stories and personalities of the latter as my own ancestors from the 'non-ethnic/minority' side of my family history.)
But back to the present...
I've described my family, and you seem to understand, as one that pays taxes and can't afford to live as well as those who benefit from government social programs. You might be interested to know that we have stayed afloat through several difficult years thanks to non-government charitable organizations, particularly religious-based ones, with special mention going out to Catholic Charities. In fact, many families in my area under similar circumstances, and indeed many individuals and families with whom I've spoken throughout the nation have had similar experiences.
In addition, many people who should qualify for government services (homeless, unemployed, etc.) have fallen through the cracks only to be helped by these charitable organizations. I have had the pleasure of performing music for a coffeehouse benefiting one such group in a nearby city. Their activities include walking out into the streets with armfuls of donated coats to give to the homeless, holding impromptu cookouts on the sidewalk for the hungry, and maintaining a small two-room storefront that includes a room full of couches to nap on and a bathroom complete with shower (which does not come standard with storefronts.. they had to install it themselves). That particular effort is led by a group called "Seed of Abraham", a Christian biker 'gang'.
I mention that point last because it is mostly anecdotal rather than statistical, and I've learned that it's better to build an argument with studies/polls and finish it with anecdotes rather than the reverse.:)
Oh, by the way, a matter of terminology.. You mentioned tax credits. I do not advocate for tax credits. I advocate for tax rate reduction. What's the difference? Usually two things. One, a tax reduction lowers what the government takes away while a tax credit raises what the government gives back. Two, a tax reduction usually rewards those who find a way to be more profit
I was not asserting American exceptionalism! You asked me for proof that the American government gives less to charity than European nations, but American citizens give more. I happen to think that little fact (which I think was proven in my sources, btw) is important when asserting that, in America, charities would step in if charitable people weren't being nearly impoverished by government taxation for inefficient government programs.
When I saw all your UK sources and comparisons, I realized that I was likely dealing with a European. Whenever I've discussed this topic with other Europeans, I have run into a difference in culture that I've had to explain: namely, that Americans are not as used to relying on government as Europeans, which may be a factor in the difference between taxation and charitable giving.
If we are going to jump ahead in the discussion, I don't mind at-all! The U.S. was founded, not on Catholic Christianity or some other religion, but specifically principles found in Protestant theology. Why is this important? Protestants generally did not have the same reliance on Catholic (or government) structure to determine what they should give to the church, or, for that matter, interpret the Bible for them. (Before the public school system was in place, the highly-Protestant New England was something like 99% literate... mostly because the parents felt one of the most important things to pass on to their children was the ability to read your Bible for yourself.)
What does that have to do with anything? Personal responsibility. If it isn't the government's job to care for the poor, and it isn't the Church-as-bureaucracy's job to care for the poor, then it is YOUR job. This is a difference between conservative and liberal worldview that has been credited by those who study the difference in charitable giving FOR said difference in charitable giving.
So, in short, low-tax economies alone will not be better at entirely eradicating poverty (though it will make it easier for lower-income households to move into higher tiers, and even now that happens regularly in the U.S.), but low-tax economies combined with a cultural belief that the individual is responsible for poverty just might do a better job than a socialist government. My examples and statistics were meant, not to go talk about Americans and superiority, but to explain why I believe there are enough personal-responsibility advocates already in the country to pick up the slack if the government would reduce our taxes and cut some of these wasteful entitlements.
I think part of the problem here is that you're talking about the UK and I'm talking about the USA. I'm aware that there are a lot of differences between here and there.:)
In Connecticut, the food stamp program just went from a maximum of $588/month for a family of four to $668/month. I try to keep our food spending at or under $300/month to make ends meet. The heating assistance program provides something like near $700 for lower-income families to heat their homes with in the winter. We made just too much money to qualify, so we didn't turn the heat on at all until sometime in November when I could scrape up the $450 necessary to fill the tank for the winter. Then we kept the heat low and bundled up to make it stretch. That's just two examples... I could find more. What's that about gilding again?:)
This from a website that's trashing the U.S. for lack of charitable giving (http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/charity.html):
Comparing USA aid to that of European countries is not in itself a simple task. The American people are actually no less generous than those of other developed countries. By comparing aid as a percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) you measure the amount of aid that is given by individuals. On this scale, Americans look angelic, giving twice as much as Britons or Canadians. By comparing aid as a fraction of Gross National Income (GNI) as the studies on this page has done, you combine the generosity of the government and individuals. Europeans pay higher taxes to their governments, who in turn operate as welfare states, doing much charitable work. For this reason, European governments always appear more generous in league tables compared to American governments, which is decidedly not a welfare state.
And from a website favorable to U.S. charity (http://www.projectrippleeffect.com/whygetinvolved/areamericansgenerous.aspx):
The European claims about stingy American foreign aid are easy to dispense with, because they ignore the enormous private gifts that characterize American generosity (such as donations following the tsunami), and therefore greatly understate true American humanitarian assistance. The U.S. Agency for International Development notes that official U.S. development assistance, at about $10 billion, is roughly 0.1 percent of GDP, but this amount is accompanied annually by about $50 billion in aid from private sources, including foundations, religious congregations, voluntary organizations, universities, corporations, and individuals (in the form of remittances to friends and family). All told, American overseas aid--mostly private, not public--comes to about 0.5 percent of GDP (approximately $200 per American). And this does not even count more controversial aid sources, such as military aid and private investment abroad by American businesses...
Even accounting for differences in standards of living, average Americans in the 1990s gave more than twice as much of their incomes to charity as the Dutch, almost three times as much as the French, more than five times as much as the Germans, and ten times as much as the Italians. Similar adjustments for differences in tax systems have little impact on the difference in private giving between the U.S. and Europe. In other words, Europeans simply give far less money, privately, than Americans.
1. The difference between the charities who spend too much on bureaucracy and the government is that people can choose to not give to the charities who spend too much on bureaucracy. As a result of the 'free market charity' situation here, I can choose to give to places where the management voluntarily take on smaller salaries than in the professional world. How many government officials have you ever seen take a voluntary pay cut? Or cut positions from their staff? Once you have a government program, you will always have it, and once it grows, it will not shrink.
3. Why should the non-working poor be able to rely on income when nobody who actually works can? (Have you seen the unemployment rate lately?) Furthermore, how will the government continue to pay for the poor when their increasing government social programs require a tax percentage so high that they impoverish everyone else? Already in my country the percentage of people who pay no tax is rising, while the taxes on the top tiers are rising, and the top tiers are making less money.
Generally what people need is a hand up, not a hand out. Mandating a certain income flow stifles creativity, innovation, and effort on the part of the people being kept basically 'in a gilded cage'. It also creates a sense of entitlement instead of fostering a sense of gratitude and closer bonds within the community.
Also, government is notoriously poor at judging wealth redistribution properly. As a result, I personally pay for other people's food stamps at a top income tax rate of 25%, but the amount of grocery money I have after paying for housing/electricity/phone is about half of what I would receive if I qualified for the food stamp program. (And yet, I manage somehow to provide my family with good, nutritious meals on that budget.) Wouldn't it be nice to have as much expendable income as the poor on government aid? This is, by the way, provided that you are the "politically correct" type of poor. Some low-income-taxpayer men will not marry the mothers of their children because the government will not help them unless the man is out of the picture.
4. My assumption is based on years of statistics. Since you mention the UK, I can guess that you are in Europe. You might not know that although the U.S. government contributions to world charity are unimpressive, the private contributions put the U.S. head and shoulders above the rest of the world. We've got a different culture than the friend of mine in Holland who didn't see the reason to help someone who had $5/week for food (in Europe) because "that's what the government is for". Roughly 60% of the citizens here claim to follow a worldview that includes the concept that the poor is each person's responsibility, rather than that of The Government alone.
Well, for every bit of money that goes to the poor from the government, tons end up getting spent by the government on bureaucracy. So in that way he's right... if you give, say, $1,000 to the government and $300 gets to the poor, and you give $500 directly to the poor instead, how are the poor worse off for not having gotten the bureaucracy involved?
Well, now, stop and think about that for a moment. Having a fire department does not mean that your home will not catch on fire, contrary to what we may have learned from Simcity. It won't even guarantee that your home won't burn down. My in-laws recently had a house fire which they reported promptly, and the firetruck just happened to be right on their street and responded immediately. They still ended up with a hole in their house and the need to heavily repair at least two rooms.
What you're paying for is a group of people trained to fight fires and the equipment they're trained to use. Your taxes ensure that, if your house catches fire, they will come as soon as they are able and take care of it the best they can.
A policeman wrote something similar in his blog. He said that when you call for him, he will do his best to get there as fast as he can and help you, but you should be prepared to defend yourself, because the chances are high that by the time he does get there the situation will have ended and all he will be able to do is help pick up the pieces.
Government services are just man's attempt to protect against and/or minimize the damage done by fire, crime, poverty, etc. There is no guarantee, and I wish more people would realize that though useful if done right, they are not a cure-all.
Seeing as studies show conservatives giving significantly more money to the poor through various charities AND significantly more of their own time through volunteering than liberals do, claiming that they don't like sharing their money and don't care if children die would be anything but honest.
Though a few generations ago, there was a definite split in matters of effort, achievement, cleanliness, integrity, good parenting, etc. between the impoverished, recently-freed black neighborhoods and the "poor white trash" they lived near. I read their own books and poetry on how it was and think, what a shame!
"No [to the idea of being born selfish/violent], we're born babies. Then we're socialized."
Spoken like someone who has never given birth to and subsequently cared for an infant.:) It's true that for the first few weeks they never demand what they don't absolutely need, but assertion of privilege starts LONG before they could pick it up from anybody else.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, bankruptcy for a teenager would probably hamper her ability to get a college education by making it near impossible for her (or her parents) to get a loan for tuition etc.
Yup, because when all viewpoints but one are abolished, that viewpoint will no longer be in dispute. The fighting ends.
How do you intend to punish those who persist in believing differently than you?
Nazism and the Russian revolution had their roots in atheism. Your analogy disproves its own point.
Yup, most folks in New England are just smart enough to look for the little "D" when casting their votes. Who needs to know anything about character or issues?
I live in New England, I know how it works.
Actually, homeschooled families in Germany do often have their children take the standard tests. The authorities, despite seeing high scores on these tests, still insist that the children be put in school. Thousands of dollars of fines is considered the lightest punishment the homeschooling parents face. More likely, armed policemen will show up at their house to take the children to school or simply remove the children from their home.
The Busekros' had one child removed from the home in a surprise raid by police and subjected to a battery of psychological testing. Despite the result being quite positive and normal, she was placed in a foster home. Katharina Plett was not even given the chance to prove that her children were doing well. She was simply arrested and thrown in jail. Jurgen and Rosemarie Dudek were told at their trial that they were doing a good job of homeschooling, but they were going to be fined anyways, because the law allowed no less. This was on appeal. Their first trial resulted in a three-month prison sentence for both parents.
Germany isn't just one of those kind, gentle places that only seek the slightest bit of proof that a homeschooling family is doing a decent job. It's downright brutal.
Actually, according to all the studies that have been done on the subject thus far, it is the majority of homeschooled children who are "more focused and ambitious". They also, as adults, are far more likely to engage in the political process and volunteer their time in the community.
Actually, you may be pleased to hear that not only are homeschooled kids still turning out higher than average test scores through the end of highschool, but those whose parents have only a highschool diploma do not have lower scores than those whose parents have a college education.
I'd like to take a moment and add to the socialization equation. Many children I've known who were homeschooled were taken out of public school because of the way they were treated by the other children. I am one of them. I was bullied for years. I developed regular headaches and started having anxiety attacks.
When my mother brought me home, she did her best to get me interested in extra-curricular activities that involved other children. I didn't want to do it. She finally made me go to one weekly group just so that I'd get some socialization. I spent my time in the corner, afraid of the other children. This was because of public school, not homeschool. It took me years to start regaining my confidence.
I notice you're focusing in on the ethics lessons from other religions, without addressing the tiny matter of public schools teaching children slang terms for sex acts. You don't have to be religious, Christian, Fundie Christian, or Fundie Nutcase Christian to question the wisdom in that.
Actually, homeschooling is not allowed even if you are an examined teacher. Every single homeschooling family in Germany is operating either secretly or under direct threat of fines or jail time.
In addition, the claim of criminal negligence was made despite the children all excelling at the state-administered tests. Basically, in Germany, educational negligence is defined as not having your child in a public or State-Approved private school, regardless of his or her actual achievement level.
Actually, our children are a direct result of the combination of their parents' DNA. As such, they are already shaped into our image by a process over which we had no control: the husband's eyes, the mother's body shape, even the likely birthweight of their children.
Now who is better suited to understanding and teaching a child than the people who, working together, contain all that the child contains? I am synesthetic. My child is synesthetic. Am I not as well suited to teaching him coping methods as the non-synesthetic public school teacher?
Many of the most brilliant people in the world were taught at home. Some of them, like Edison, were removed from school after flunking out. When a child is capable of creating blueprints in his head, who is better suited to help him? Someone who can do the same thing, or someone who cannot?
You've put forth a false claim here in linking the shaping of your child with beating and brainwashing him. Would you claim that you cannot braid hair without pulling it out of the scalp, or that you cannot close the snaps on clothing without crushing the metal? Of course not. There's use and there's abuse, and it's a logical fallacy to claim that one is always the other.
Do you know the Three Laws of Motion? Ever noted how a prism divides white light into color? Used a refracting telescope? Congratulations, you've been learning from Isaac Newton, a theologian.
Most of the scientific discoveries historically have been made within the structure of a religious institution, possibly because said institution has the curiosity to learn more about this world that they believe was created by a deity with structure and purpose, and they are more likely to be capable of supporting full-time scientists.
Actually, the people who "allegedly alleged" Bush's IQ as averaging around 120-126 have been estimating presidential IQ based on available documentation for decades. Most of them are licensed, educated psychologists, and would probably take offense (or at least amusement) at the notion that they have IQ's lower than 80.
Ah, sorry, no.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
"Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in "hard cases" are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes perhaps 30% for primarily economic reasons."
In addition, in many cases the actual medical procedure, even if it is performed in a properly sterile environment(rare) with proper follow-up (rarer), causes scarring that makes it difficult or impossible to get pregnant again.
Actually, only one of my bits of information, the latter one, involved other countries. The others in my first answering-post involved all charity, including internal.
:)
You claimed that lowering taxes and slimming/eliminating social programs would result in nobody helping the poor. I contend that the historical charitable-giving ethics in America are still sufficiently strong to provide for the poor. When I spoke of private contributions, I meant to show that, in America, private contributions tend to highly trump government contributions to the point where if you look only at the government we're nearly last on the list, but if you look at private we're first. I don't know what it is about Europeans and inferiority complexes, but this isn't the first time I've been accused of "exceptionalism" merely by pointing out something in the U.S. that's good...
Anyways, now we're kind of stuck, I guess. I say that Americans who follow the worldview that descended from the Protestants who came to the New World see helping the poor as their own personal responsibility, and indeed the charitable contributions from those who follow that worldview vs. those who don't, plus the difference between charitable contributions from the government vs. private individuals, can be taken as proof that this is still in effect.
You, however, seem to be arguing that since the Protestant work ethic pushed by people who remained in England proclaims that the poor are feckless and irresponsible and don't deserve help, the Protestant work ethic pushed by people in America claiming that helping the poor is everyone's responsibility will necessarily end in none of the poor being helped. I'm not sure where the logic lies here... but I might like to point out that the Reformists who stayed in England and flourished there might have had a different mindset and/or personality than those who fled for their lives. (I've studied the stories and personalities of the latter as my own ancestors from the 'non-ethnic/minority' side of my family history.)
But back to the present...
I've described my family, and you seem to understand, as one that pays taxes and can't afford to live as well as those who benefit from government social programs. You might be interested to know that we have stayed afloat through several difficult years thanks to non-government charitable organizations, particularly religious-based ones, with special mention going out to Catholic Charities. In fact, many families in my area under similar circumstances, and indeed many individuals and families with whom I've spoken throughout the nation have had similar experiences.
In addition, many people who should qualify for government services (homeless, unemployed, etc.) have fallen through the cracks only to be helped by these charitable organizations. I have had the pleasure of performing music for a coffeehouse benefiting one such group in a nearby city. Their activities include walking out into the streets with armfuls of donated coats to give to the homeless, holding impromptu cookouts on the sidewalk for the hungry, and maintaining a small two-room storefront that includes a room full of couches to nap on and a bathroom complete with shower (which does not come standard with storefronts.. they had to install it themselves). That particular effort is led by a group called "Seed of Abraham", a Christian biker 'gang'.
I mention that point last because it is mostly anecdotal rather than statistical, and I've learned that it's better to build an argument with studies/polls and finish it with anecdotes rather than the reverse.
Oh, by the way, a matter of terminology.. You mentioned tax credits. I do not advocate for tax credits. I advocate for tax rate reduction. What's the difference? Usually two things. One, a tax reduction lowers what the government takes away while a tax credit raises what the government gives back. Two, a tax reduction usually rewards those who find a way to be more profit
I was not asserting American exceptionalism! You asked me for proof that the American government gives less to charity than European nations, but American citizens give more. I happen to think that little fact (which I think was proven in my sources, btw) is important when asserting that, in America, charities would step in if charitable people weren't being nearly impoverished by government taxation for inefficient government programs.
When I saw all your UK sources and comparisons, I realized that I was likely dealing with a European. Whenever I've discussed this topic with other Europeans, I have run into a difference in culture that I've had to explain: namely, that Americans are not as used to relying on government as Europeans, which may be a factor in the difference between taxation and charitable giving.
If we are going to jump ahead in the discussion, I don't mind at-all! The U.S. was founded, not on Catholic Christianity or some other religion, but specifically principles found in Protestant theology. Why is this important? Protestants generally did not have the same reliance on Catholic (or government) structure to determine what they should give to the church, or, for that matter, interpret the Bible for them. (Before the public school system was in place, the highly-Protestant New England was something like 99% literate... mostly because the parents felt one of the most important things to pass on to their children was the ability to read your Bible for yourself.)
What does that have to do with anything? Personal responsibility. If it isn't the government's job to care for the poor, and it isn't the Church-as-bureaucracy's job to care for the poor, then it is YOUR job. This is a difference between conservative and liberal worldview that has been credited by those who study the difference in charitable giving FOR said difference in charitable giving.
So, in short, low-tax economies alone will not be better at entirely eradicating poverty (though it will make it easier for lower-income households to move into higher tiers, and even now that happens regularly in the U.S.), but low-tax economies combined with a cultural belief that the individual is responsible for poverty just might do a better job than a socialist government. My examples and statistics were meant, not to go talk about Americans and superiority, but to explain why I believe there are enough personal-responsibility advocates already in the country to pick up the slack if the government would reduce our taxes and cut some of these wasteful entitlements.
Here, this might also help (www.minhac.es/ief/Publicaciones/Revistas/Hacienda%20Publica/165/165_charitable.pdf):
Charitable giving to humanitarian organizations in Spain (excerpt)
COUNTRY PER CAP. GIVING
Spain 122
Belgium 120
U.K. 117
Netherlands 110
Ireland 100
France 74
Finland 70
Austria 50
Germany 39
Hungary 32
Slovakia 25
Czech Republ 25
Romania 5
U.S. 278
(NOTE: amounts given are in Euros)
I think part of the problem here is that you're talking about the UK and I'm talking about the USA. I'm aware that there are a lot of differences between here and there. :)
:)
In Connecticut, the food stamp program just went from a maximum of $588/month for a family of four to $668/month. I try to keep our food spending at or under $300/month to make ends meet. The heating assistance program provides something like near $700 for lower-income families to heat their homes with in the winter. We made just too much money to qualify, so we didn't turn the heat on at all until sometime in November when I could scrape up the $450 necessary to fill the tank for the winter. Then we kept the heat low and bundled up to make it stretch. That's just two examples... I could find more. What's that about gilding again?
This from a website that's trashing the U.S. for lack of charitable giving (http://www.vexen.co.uk/countries/charity.html):
Comparing USA aid to that of European countries is not in itself a simple task. The American people are actually no less generous than those of other developed countries. By comparing aid as a percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) you measure the amount of aid that is given by individuals. On this scale, Americans look angelic, giving twice as much as Britons or Canadians. By comparing aid as a fraction of Gross National Income (GNI) as the studies on this page has done, you combine the generosity of the government and individuals. Europeans pay higher taxes to their governments, who in turn operate as welfare states, doing much charitable work. For this reason, European governments always appear more generous in league tables compared to American governments, which is decidedly not a welfare state.
And from a website favorable to U.S. charity (http://www.projectrippleeffect.com/whygetinvolved/areamericansgenerous.aspx):
The European claims about stingy American foreign aid are easy to dispense with, because they ignore the enormous private gifts that characterize American generosity (such as donations following the tsunami), and therefore greatly understate true American humanitarian assistance. The U.S. Agency for International Development notes that official U.S. development assistance, at about $10 billion, is roughly 0.1 percent of GDP, but this amount is accompanied annually by about $50 billion in aid from private sources, including foundations, religious congregations, voluntary organizations, universities, corporations, and individuals (in the form of remittances to friends and family). All told, American overseas aid--mostly private, not public--comes to about 0.5 percent of GDP (approximately $200 per American). And this does not even count more controversial aid sources, such as military aid and private investment abroad by American businesses...
Even accounting for differences in standards of living, average Americans in the 1990s gave more than twice as much of their incomes to charity as the Dutch, almost three times as much as the French, more than five times as much as the Germans, and ten times as much as the Italians. Similar adjustments for differences in tax systems have little impact on the difference in private giving between the U.S. and Europe. In other words, Europeans simply give far less money, privately, than Americans.
1. The difference between the charities who spend too much on bureaucracy and the government is that people can choose to not give to the charities who spend too much on bureaucracy. As a result of the 'free market charity' situation here, I can choose to give to places where the management voluntarily take on smaller salaries than in the professional world. How many government officials have you ever seen take a voluntary pay cut? Or cut positions from their staff? Once you have a government program, you will always have it, and once it grows, it will not shrink.
3. Why should the non-working poor be able to rely on income when nobody who actually works can? (Have you seen the unemployment rate lately?) Furthermore, how will the government continue to pay for the poor when their increasing government social programs require a tax percentage so high that they impoverish everyone else? Already in my country the percentage of people who pay no tax is rising, while the taxes on the top tiers are rising, and the top tiers are making less money.
Generally what people need is a hand up, not a hand out. Mandating a certain income flow stifles creativity, innovation, and effort on the part of the people being kept basically 'in a gilded cage'. It also creates a sense of entitlement instead of fostering a sense of gratitude and closer bonds within the community.
Also, government is notoriously poor at judging wealth redistribution properly. As a result, I personally pay for other people's food stamps at a top income tax rate of 25%, but the amount of grocery money I have after paying for housing/electricity/phone is about half of what I would receive if I qualified for the food stamp program. (And yet, I manage somehow to provide my family with good, nutritious meals on that budget.) Wouldn't it be nice to have as much expendable income as the poor on government aid? This is, by the way, provided that you are the "politically correct" type of poor. Some low-income-taxpayer men will not marry the mothers of their children because the government will not help them unless the man is out of the picture.
4. My assumption is based on years of statistics. Since you mention the UK, I can guess that you are in Europe. You might not know that although the U.S. government contributions to world charity are unimpressive, the private contributions put the U.S. head and shoulders above the rest of the world. We've got a different culture than the friend of mine in Holland who didn't see the reason to help someone who had $5/week for food (in Europe) because "that's what the government is for". Roughly 60% of the citizens here claim to follow a worldview that includes the concept that the poor is each person's responsibility, rather than that of The Government alone.
My town has a volunteer fire department. :)
Well, for every bit of money that goes to the poor from the government, tons end up getting spent by the government on bureaucracy. So in that way he's right... if you give, say, $1,000 to the government and $300 gets to the poor, and you give $500 directly to the poor instead, how are the poor worse off for not having gotten the bureaucracy involved?
Well, now, stop and think about that for a moment. Having a fire department does not mean that your home will not catch on fire, contrary to what we may have learned from Simcity. It won't even guarantee that your home won't burn down. My in-laws recently had a house fire which they reported promptly, and the firetruck just happened to be right on their street and responded immediately. They still ended up with a hole in their house and the need to heavily repair at least two rooms.
What you're paying for is a group of people trained to fight fires and the equipment they're trained to use. Your taxes ensure that, if your house catches fire, they will come as soon as they are able and take care of it the best they can.
A policeman wrote something similar in his blog. He said that when you call for him, he will do his best to get there as fast as he can and help you, but you should be prepared to defend yourself, because the chances are high that by the time he does get there the situation will have ended and all he will be able to do is help pick up the pieces.
Government services are just man's attempt to protect against and/or minimize the damage done by fire, crime, poverty, etc. There is no guarantee, and I wish more people would realize that though useful if done right, they are not a cure-all.
Seeing as studies show conservatives giving significantly more money to the poor through various charities AND significantly more of their own time through volunteering than liberals do, claiming that they don't like sharing their money and don't care if children die would be anything but honest.
Though a few generations ago, there was a definite split in matters of effort, achievement, cleanliness, integrity, good parenting, etc. between the impoverished, recently-freed black neighborhoods and the "poor white trash" they lived near. I read their own books and poetry on how it was and think, what a shame!
"No [to the idea of being born selfish/violent], we're born babies. Then we're socialized."
:) It's true that for the first few weeks they never demand what they don't absolutely need, but assertion of privilege starts LONG before they could pick it up from anybody else.
Spoken like someone who has never given birth to and subsequently cared for an infant.