And you wonder why so many people hate america

[emprworm]

"Yes, but the statement was made relative to the other tests."

And?

[nemafakei]

"Americans pay more than double the PERCENTAGE of their income to charity than Canadians.  This amounts to more than TRIPLE the total amount."

Precisely my point.

""I PAY MY TAXES!  DAMN THOSE KIDS IN ETHIOPIA!""

Completely irrelevant to context of my argument. Taxes account for giving to domestic charities. Why do you bother replying to something you don't bother to read?

Do those poverty statistics include what they receive from the government itself?

And you also neglect other factors such as free healthcare, etc.

[emprworm]

"Precisely my point."

sorry, I thought you were disputing the statistics that Americans donate more of their income to charity than Canadians.

[Anathema]

Emprworm, if people here didn't like the fact that they have to pay more then the US' taxation level, and instead would rather have hundreds die more of poor healthcare for instance, they'd elect somebody styled figure to make it so. So your logic is false.

[emprworm]

Emprworm, if people here didn't like the fact that they have to pay more then the US' taxation level, and instead would rather have hundreds die more of poor healthcare for instance, they'd elect somebody styled figure to make it so. So your logic is false.

well, i'm glad to know that people in the netherlands are content and happy.  happy that they dont own homes.  happy that they live in debt.  Happy that they keep very little of their income.  I'm glad to know they are content.  Since I have only been in the Netherlands once (and for only 2 days) I cant speak much about how happy its citizenry is, but I do live in Canada, and am more qualified to speak about Canadian matters.

[Anathema]

Just curious, what part of my post suggests that you can't own a house in the Netherlands? And that they live in debt? I might have slipped up my wording, English is not my first language after all.

[emprworm]

cmon, you and I both know only the super-wealthy ever own a home in the Netherlands.  If I'm wrong, I'll eat humble pie, but if its anything like Switzerland, people are super-taxed who try and own a home and doing so is reserved only for those who are really well off.  As opposed to the US where we are going through a massive home-owner boom.  People in the US own property.  Its nice to own a big plot of land.  The youth in the Netherlands have only one place to live- a condo, an apartment...or maybe a townhome.  But when I speak of a home, I mean one that sits on a plot of land.

[Anathema]

Well if you're talking about youths, well yeah farely little of them own houses. Price for land is pretty high up here because we don't have as much unused land like the US for example, but that's hardly a consequense of taxation policy.

If a couple marries and for the purpose of raising children want to own a plot of land with a house on top, they'll have to take a loan. This is a pretty standard practice wich works out fine enough.

[emprworm]

i suppose.  but still i find it odd that people are so happy getting taxed so high.  most of the money you make goes into the hands of the government and that sucks as far as I'm concerned.  I have a wonderful philosophy:  The person who is best able to decide how to spend your money is YOU!  I don't want some big phat socialist government telling me how to spend MY MONEY!

[SurlyPIG]

There was that so hard? :)  However those statistics do not pack as much punch as you think...

Firstly, ODA levels are not irrelevent (though I am not claiming they are of exclusive relevance) because private aid is not inherantly superior to public aid (BTW I'm not claiming the reverse is true).  Voting to have your higher taxes go to other countries in greater proportion than your neighbours absolutely counts as donations towards the national total (though it is obviously not the sole component).  Agreed?

The percentage of both Canadians and Americans who declared a charitable donation for tax info was very similar (~25% vs ~30%) but there are several reasons for the apparent disparity in average donation size.

- Average income (obvious)

- Conversion from CDN to USD (Canadians would appear to donate 30% more this year than five years ago due to the dollar's strength)

- Differences in progression of tax brackets (less $ = less $ to give)

- Differences in tax-deductability with respect to charitable donations (limitations on maximum deductable amounts)

- Differences in the definition of a charity (though I expect they are similar)

Now, I'm not an accountant so bear with me.  The average Canadian donation was something close to $1000 CDN if I remember right, which as explained above is partly a product of what Revenue Canada allows for a tax-deductable donation.  I assume the IRS has a similar program.  Anyway, the maximum amount of net income that can be deducted towards your return was 20% this last fiscal year.  This, however, is being increased 375% to 75% of net income for the next tax season so expect to see the size of the average Canadian donation shooting up.  I have no idea what the US-equivalent for this is, so being a former-US taxpayer perhaps you could help me out with that.  Anyway, this tax-deduction thing, along with all the stuff I listed above, accounts for a large amount of the difference between the size of the average Canadian and American donations.  I'm not about to bother crunching numbers with conversion rate actions and account for cost of living and all the rest but I don't need to because I am not claiming we privately donate more, in fact I doubt we do, but my point is that the amount of money Canadians and Americans donate to charities is similar (which is no surprise as we are culturally similar).

Okay, I concede that Americans privately donate more than Canadians.  Obviously, however, Canada as a nation gives more than twice as much as the US in terms of official foreign aid.  Now, it must be acknowledged that there are pros and cons with both.  Both official aid and non-governmental organizations (private aid - NGOs) may become corrupt in that it gets embezzled at the other end by warlords or dictators before reaching the people who need it.  Official aid can become marred behind beaurocratic red tape, but the NGOs aren't immune to this either as they can face issues at both ends.

The most important difference from where I sit is that official aid choices and the actual bookkeeping is subject to the scrutiny of the electorate.  When it comes to private charities, though, most charity is domestic and a lot of it is corrupt in principle and not all that charitable.  For example, a tax-deductable "charitable" donation on the part of a corporation could be something like the CFO's kid's school's softball team.  Now I'm not saying that's a bad thing by nature, but if its tax-deductable, then however much money was donated means a proportionate amount of money will be kept out of the public system which might have gone to education to support, say, the softball team of a school in a poor neighbourhood that doesn't have students with parents that are CFOs.  Another example is donations that ultimately bring about more profit for your company as per Bill Gates donating hundreds of millions in computers and software (all PCs with Windows, of course) to American schools that couldn't afford them.  Its absolutely a good thing that underprivelidged students got access to a helpful educational tool, but Windows-using kids become Windows-buying adults so the action is questionable from that respect.  Finally, a more flat-out form of corruption exists in donations to churches.  If I'm wrong correct me and disregard the rest of this paragraph but I believe that churches count as charities in both our countries and are entitled to the corresponding tax-deduction programs.  Let me first acknowledge that most churches do a lot of excellent social work most of the time.  That said, excusing people from taxation because they pay to have their religion preached and propagated is a questionable practice.  That, however, is a drop in the bucket compared to the hundreds of millions (billions, now?) in sexual harrassment settlements between churches and victims of clergy abuse (and no it's not just the Catholic Church that is guilty of this though it is certainly the molestation juggernaut when it comes to churches).

Anyway, the above proves that charities can be just as corrupt as ODA funds so between that and the above narrowing of the gap between Canadian and US donation size so I'd say that the two countries are close in terms of how much help they get to developing nations.  Certainly both are close enough so as neither deserves the titles of "scrooge-like" or "armchair quarterback" and that is the point I'm trying to make.  I would be very much impressed by acknowledgement of the truth in what I've said but if you do the brick wall thing I could care less.  I am secure enough in what I know so as not to need to say things like:

"LIKE I SAID, I'll compare American giving and donations to Canadians ANY DAY....BRING IT ON."

BTW, Carolyn Parrish was not actually kicked from parliament, just from the Liberal Party, and the given reason was mostly for criticizing the PM, not for what she said about Bush or for the satirical joke she took part in on Air Farce.  The implications of this actually make her more free to say what she wants, though as an independant she has less opportunity to address parliament but when she does it is no longer subject to approval by the party.  She can vote independantly now too, though the only downside for her is that she wont be able to wear the Liberal banner when come next election.

[nemafakei]

"That is a baseline"

I thought you paid more taxes in Canada than the US?

"The person who is best able to decide how to spend your money is YOU!"

What counts as your money is the money you receive after taxation.

And, as Anathema said, the public chooses how much is taxed, insofar as the democracy is effective.

"Donations = voluntary

Taxes = involuntary.

do we see a difference yet?"

There are differences - but I need a relevant difference. Explain why the difference means no taxed money is going to good causes.

[Andrew]

Canada doesn't have people like Bill gates to donate billions of dollars privately.

And yes taxes do go toward social programs (which include charities) and also to go towards foreign countries.

Canada from what I know is taxed more than USA, and thus have healthcare etc.

Poverty is poverty.

[Kiyouta]

That quote has made me want to move to the moon. :'(

[nemafakei]

"And if Average american income is larger than Canadians, then obviously they would be able to donate more"

Emprworm's saying the US donates a greater percentage of its income privately.

[Andrew]

ahh, well Canadians are taxed so much. If after tax there was a percentage, then it might be different. Obviously Canadians can not donate money that is taken by tax. Therefor an after tax percentage would be required to compare.

[emprworm]

well i'm not going to argue this anymore.  The statistics and facts are there. I dont want to bash Canada simply because Americans donate more money to charity, but I had to defend America against the hate.  Look at the title of this thread.  People freely bash america to no end, so your darn right that occasionally ill come to its defense.  If y'all want to think that your aggregious taxes that you pay to receive your precious "services" are equitable to donating to charity, then you go right ahead and be happy with that.  Meanwhile, poverty in the US is lower than most, we pay far less taxes, and we donate more money to charity, not equating taxes with charity, and I'll be happy with that. 

[Dude_Doc]

...we pay far less taxes,...

You mean the rich pay less taxes?

 

[SurlyPIG]

well i'm not going to argue this anymore.  The statistics and facts are there. I dont want to bash Canada simply because Americans donate more money to charity, but I had to defend America against the hate.  Look at the title of this thread.  People freely bash america to no end, so your darn right that occasionally ill come to its defense.  If y'all want to think that your aggregious taxes that you pay to receive your precious "services" are equitable to donating to charity, then you go right ahead and be happy with that.  Meanwhile, poverty in the US is lower than most, we pay far less taxes, and we donate more money to charity, not equating taxes with charity, and I'll be happy with that. 

Oh please, the outnumbered national defender sob story?  I didn't think you would give up that easily.  How were you "defending America against hate" by calling Canadians a bunch of "scrooge-like armchair quarterbacks" empy?  Where's the D in comments like that?

You're not getting of that easy either.  Yeah you had your statistics but like I proved they were out of context, fallacious, and misleading.  Now that was defense.

[nemafakei]

"ahh, well Canadians are taxed so much. If after tax there was a percentage, then it might be different. Obviously Canadians can not donate money that is taken by tax. Therefor an after tax percentage would be required to compare."

Good point. If emprworm does not accept that elements of taxation take the form of charity, then he must logically accept that only taxed pay is that from which the individual can donate, and when measuring individual donations, the percentage of net, not gross income must be used.

[Viq]

Are we all talking about Canada and the US as countries or the individual people in those countries. It's tight to say that evreyone in Canada ot the US is charitable/bush haters/or whatever else you want to say.

[Andrew]

On a percent of the population is the only way to show anything..., which we have been arguing somewhat.

[K4^Raimund]

Why do I hate Americans? I think theyre blabla, blabla, trying to be superior, when the Elite is in Europe and so on...But they were not stupid for ever...I reckon since the blabla.