I am near Angela Merkel... see the map on page 13...
I thought I'd be more near Thatcher... or Bush

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:

Did you read the article or did you just look at the charts?  I am not trying to be rude, but it doesn't seem like you did.    The following paragraph puts the charts into context:

Did you read the article instead of just skimming a paragraph and misreading it?

Quote:

Quote:
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 work2. For this reason, European governments always appear more generous in league tables compared to American governments, which is decidedly not a welfare state. American citizens give no less than others, according to The Economist, "the extra percentage point of its GDP that individuals deposit in rattling tins hardly reflects the much lighter taxes they pay"2. American citizens give more, but the government does so much less that the country as a whole looks miserly. It would not be right to blame the citizens for this, but the lack of a socially-minded government.

The American people give plenty, but our country is ranked very low because we do not live in a 'welfare state'.

The section you quoted simply says the comparison is not "very simple" because you have to take the differences help is giving into consideration... which is what they are doing

"The American people give plenty" refers to direct personal contributions outside the tax system. I took the liberty of highlighting the section in your quote where they write that when you combine the the personal and tax based contributions the US looks... ehh... "misarly" (their words and you quoted it, so I guess you agree)

I know people in the US likes to show how much they give in total numbers... because it is an exceptional good way to make Americans look really generous and at the same time allow them to contribute far less than others.

The two main benefits for the US of these numbers are of course:

Population size. If a group of 10 people contribute ¤20 and a group of 100 contribute ¤150 the people in the small group are obviously the most generous even though the largest group in total contributed more.

Comparing yourself to poorer people. If someone has ¤10 and gives ¤8 to charity I would consider him more generous than someone having ¤20 who gives ¤10. As this is not necessarely a linier scale this one can be a bit tricky to judge, hence it's most common to compare countries in approximately the same "category", for example the 20 richest. There is not much point in comparing your "generousity" with people who have nothing to give anyway (except it makes you look good). When you compare yourself against your equals you come out pretty bad (again the word you quoted sums it up nicely: "miserly")

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
World governments: $79.51 billion
American people:    $71.2 billion

As lmoelleb pointed out, these figures don't take population into account. The only fair way to make comparisons like these are to do it by capita.

KM

Quoting m.cellophane:

Quote:
I'm hanging out with Nelson Mandela and The Dalai Lama.

Same here, too.

Quoting lmoelleb:

Quote:
"The American people give plenty" refers to direct personal contributions outside the tax system. I took the liberty of highlighting the section in your quote where they write that when you combine the the personal and tax based contributions the US looks... ehh... "misarly" (their words and you quoted it, so I guess you agree)

You are misreading the sentence.  America looks miserly because the government does so much less.  And, yes, it is 'outside the tax system', which means our generosity is voluntary...not government enforced.  Please explain to me how voluntary charity is 'miserly'? 

Quote:
I know people in the US likes to show how much they give in total numbers... because it is an exceptional good way to make Americans look really generous and at the same time allow them to contribute far less than others.

The two main benefits for the US of these numbers are of course:

Population size. If a group of 10 people contribute ¤20 and a group of 100 contribute ¤150 the people in the small group are obviously the most generous even though the largest group in total contributed more.

Comparing yourself to poorer people. If someone has ¤10 and gives ¤8 to charity I would consider him more generous than someone having ¤20 who gives ¤10. As this is not necessarely a linier scale this one can be a bit tricky to judge, hence it's most common to compare countries in approximately the same "category", for example the 20 richest. There is not much point in comparing your "generousity" with people who have nothing to give anyway (except it makes you look good). When you compare yourself against your equals you come out pretty bad (again the word you quoted sums it up nicely: "miserly")

That was a UK based article and it clearly states, "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."

Slice it anyway you want, a 2:1 ratio is, by no means, 'miserly'...unless you are saying that Brits and Canadians are not our equals.   

This whole argument strikes me as so much "my dad can beat your dad."  What is the point of this?  No matter which side of the world you live on, you're going to think your country is the best there is and that the other guy is bragging without justification.  We also tend to interpret things we read based on what we want to see, not necessarily what the author meant. 

BTW: if the US Government forced me to fork over 50% of my income in taxes, I would EXPECT it to donate at a much higher rate than it does.  But here, it's my personal responsibility to make charitable donations -- not just through government expenditures. That's why it looks like the US Government is miserly.

Quoting Astrakan:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
World governments: $79.51 billion
American people:    $71.2 billion

As lmoelleb pointed out, these figures don't take population into account. The only fair way to make comparisons like these are to do it by capita.

KM

You do the math:

US Population @300 million
World population @6 billion

per capita for U.S. - $237
per capita forthe rest of the world - $13.25

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting lmoelleb:

Quote:
"The American people give plenty" refers to direct personal contributions outside the tax system. I took the liberty of highlighting the section in your quote where they write that when you combine the the personal and tax based contributions the US looks... ehh... "misarly" (their words and you quoted it, so I guess you agree)

You are misreading the sentence.

And I think you do.

Quote:


America looks miserly because the government does so much less.  And, yes, it is 'outside the tax system', which means our generosity is voluntary...not government enforced.  Please explain to me how voluntary charity is 'miserly'? 

It's quite simple. The wellfare states have freely chosen to become wellfare states and would have it no other way. So basically we have voluntarely chosen to contribute to contribute our aid through the tax system. You have chosen to do it personally. It doesn't really matter how much you contribute either way - both are voluntary, both ways are fine...  And the quote you had stated "American citizens give more, but the government does so much less that the country as a whole looks miserly". How much clearer can it be? If person A gives $10 to charity directly and $2 though tax, while B gives $2 directly and $15 though tax, then B has obviously given $17 while A has given $12. Basically you are trying to claim person A is giving most. Sorry, that is just not making any sense.

Quote:

Quote:
I know people in the US likes to show how much they give in total numbers... because it is an exceptional good way to make Americans look really generous and at the same time allow them to contribute far less than others.

The two main benefits for the US of these numbers are of course:

Population size. If a group of 10 people contribute ¤20 and a group of 100 contribute ¤150 the people in the small group are obviously the most generous even though the largest group in total contributed more.

Comparing yourself to poorer people. If someone has ¤10 and gives ¤8 to charity I would consider him more generous than someone having ¤20 who gives ¤10. As this is not necessarely a linier scale this one can be a bit tricky to judge, hence it's most common to compare countries in approximately the same "category", for example the 20 richest. There is not much point in comparing your "generousity" with people who have nothing to give anyway (except it makes you look good). When you compare yourself against your equals you come out pretty bad (again the word you quoted sums it up nicely: "miserly")

That was a UK based article and it clearly states, "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."

Yes, and read on - this is just the start of the paragraph. Basically this is the "this is how it looks when you only look at individual contribution" part. The "when you look at the country as a whole part" is the one that use the word "miserly" to describe the US.

Quote:

Slice it anyway you want, a 2:1 ratio is, by no means, 'miserly'...unless you are saying that Brits and Canadians are not our equals.   

Again - "given by individuals". So basically you are saying "If we ignore the largest part of the contributions made by the British and Canadians, we do well - even though we also ignore the smallest part we give. How can that in any way be a meaningfull comparison?