And they will always be more generous than the rich.
Which is another reason we need progressive taxation. Greed does not engender philanthropy in most people. It only leads to more greed.
And they will always be more generous than the rich.
Which is another reason we need progressive taxation. Greed does not engender philanthropy in most people. It only leads to more greed.
The rich didn’t get rich by giving money away after all.
Where’s the bit about the poor “inheriting the earth?”
Actually that was a mistranslation from the Aramaic. The original said “The poor shall inherit the shit.”
I thought the translation reads, “The poor shall inherit dirt.”
Just guessing here – the poor also have a higher percentage of regular church goers, and “charity” includes the weekly tithing. That’s not all bad, but not all “charity’ is equal.
Guess we’re on the same page here.
Great minds and all.
I think most of those charitable gifts from low income folks are to churches. Whether or not churches are truly charities is, IMHO, open to debate.
The article speaks of church-related charities, but seems to imply (but not outright state) that churches themselves are not included. The article leaves us uninformed on a number of important points, unfortunately.
BTW, Steven, seems like you linked the wrong article. The details are here.
I think a progressive income tax is a good thing, a real good thing. It was once the battle cry of the progressives and needs to regain, once again, its central position. The four presidential horsemen of the political apocalypse, i.e. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush, the clown, have been fighting for twenty-eight years for the rich at the expense of the poor. It is time to reverse this doleful trend.
I think it has more bearing that the poor know first hand how terrifying poverty is. Though comfortable now, I’ve been in that category a hefty percentage of my life. And the worst thing about poverty is the fear you always feel. It’s living in a world where options are severely limited, where all doors seem locked against you. We live in a world where people are judged by what they have, where they live, what they wear and what they drive. People who don’t pass those judgments are of no consequence to most of our society.
So that’s why people who are/were poor give more. It’s called “empathy”. The desire to spare somebody else, to give them a little respite from the constant fear of being poor.
When homeless people speak about their experiences, most that I’ve heard say it’s the working poor who are more generous than the obviously comfortable. Just hearsay, but it does tend to back up the numbers. Makes sense that the “unsuccessful” by the standards of American mendacity would be less likely to just give a sermon on “personal responsibility” instead of a dollar.
Just another trickle of evidence that rich people are not worth keeping. We need a tax system that works.