Myanmar is an exceptionally devout Buddhist society with many monasteries supported through traditional almsgiving. I suspect that's why Myanmar tops even the U.S. in the World Giving Index, which merely asks whether you've donated money or time (volunteered).
Not that faith-based giving is inferior, but different people have different notions about what constitutes philanthropy and charity.
>Not that faith-based giving is inferior, but different people have different notions about what constitutes philanthropy and charity.
I'm sure there are people who will find a way to invalidate this kind of charity. But it takes a level of dedication, discipline and a moral code to take 10% of earnings for benefit of your community and do it without legal compulsion. And it's the latter part that makes it different then those that pat themselves on the back for merely voting for higher taxes or disparage others for not voting for higher taxes.
> But it takes a level of dedication, discipline and a moral code to take 10% of earnings for benefit of your community and do it without legal compulsion.
Absolutely, but I think that's pretty rare among the general population. IIUC, if I drop $10 into the offertory basket at Sunday Mass I'm counted just the same as a Mormon who tithes 10% of their income.
I have never heard the complete opposite so thanks for the data.
It’s interesting because having grown up steeped in the culture for 30 years I have never once heard this or seen much real charitable action. I see small donations and token donations but very rarely anything like donating most of ones wealth or giving up excess to donate to those less well-off.
I’d love to better understand this discrepancy. I hear more about how much money people spend more than how much they donate in the media. And even anecdotally I can’t think of anyone talking about a donation they made in conversation. It seems like this should be something we talk about and champion more.
Most countries don't let you deduct your donations from your taxes. It's hard to compare levels of giving across nations because of this.
A lot of people only donate to reduce their tax bill.
Also, because we don't have a social safety net in the US, a lot of people donate to make up for that, which is certainly noble, but would be far less necessary if we had a stronger social safety net that more evenly distributed that wealth giveaway.
With very few (and even then, extremely capped) exceptions, the US absolutely does not let you deduct donations from your taxes. You’re allowed to deduct your donations from your pre-tax income, which is equivalent to being able to deduct some percentage (typically less than 30%) of your donations from your actual tax burden.
It’s not being pedantic; this changes the calculus altogether. Deducting from your taxes means you can say “oh well, I have to pay $1M in taxes, I might as well just use that money to make a donation to a charity of my choice and gain some PR instead,” whereas deducting your taxable income means “instead of parting with $1M in tax, I would need to part with $5M in charity to zero out my tax burden,” which is a very different decision and still largely a philanthropic one at some level or the other.
A lot of people don't understand how tax deductions work, and assume that they get the full value. Also, as noted below, it has a PR benefit while also giving you a 30% "discount".
I'm not sure that's the case at all. And even if they did assume that they got the full value, they would be quickly corrected of that belief when they actually filed their taxes.
Having volunteered to help people fill out their taxes, I think you vastly overestimate people's abilities to understand complex math. Most people just don't understand how deductions or graduated tax brackets work, even after having it explained to them.
Also, it's hidden. If you used TurboTax for example, you put all your numbers in and get a number out. All you've heard is "donations are deductible" but there really is no obvious connection to putting in your donations and seeing how much it saves you.
It's not about saving money. As this thread shows, charity is akin to a good PR move. Paying taxes is seen as neutral, at best. If you're "spending" either way, you might as well get something for it.
It's better than spending the money on yachts or luxury goods, which is the other way people signal status. I'm a big fan of conspicuous philanthropy over conspicuous consumption.
Debatable considering that donating art works (whose valuations can be, let's say, subjective) for tax purposes is a fairly well known way to reduce your tax burden.
Myanmar is an exceptionally devout Buddhist society with many monasteries supported through traditional almsgiving. I suspect that's why Myanmar tops even the U.S. in the World Giving Index, which merely asks whether you've donated money or time (volunteered).
Not that faith-based giving is inferior, but different people have different notions about what constitutes philanthropy and charity.