About
This is an example of a WordPress page, you could edit this to put information about yourself or your site so readers know where you are coming from. You can create as many pages like this one or sub-pages as you like and manage all of your content inside of WordPress.
Loading...
Effects of Charity
By Jamie Lynn Kelling
Compassion; to alleviate ones suffering, a human emotion stemming from the pain of others, found quite abundantly in today’s society. Without the outreach of a helping hand it would be very hard for society as a hole to progress. So easily is money being the extension, to answer, to solve, all the pain and suffering of others.
Most may say Americans are very uncharitable; greedy, per se. Our drive and sacrifices put forth for high paying, long hour jobs are deceitful. Three out of every four households make charitable donations, averaging about 3.5% of their income. To add on to that, more than half of American families donate their time to volunteer. Time is sometimes more precious than money.
So who are these people? Do these compassionate actions lean to the right, or to the left? Do the ideas of the democrats and more liberal-minded Americans create a skewed version of where charitable donations come from? Actually no, that’s not the truth at all, the complete opposite, in fact. Hard to believe the idea of more welfare, “taking care of everyone” attitude of the left doesn’t transfer into the households and their giving habits.
A conservative household on average gave 30% more money than that of a household held by a liberal, even when, on average, the liberal household earned an average of 6% more income per year. Statewide, the red (republican) states gave more of their income away for charitable donations. Households having income exceeding more than $1 million dollars (about 7%) of Americans give half of the total contributions to charity.
The support of those wealthy Americans is much needed to keep the local charities alive and supporting those in need. Perhaps the high taxes of the wealthy are a little extravagant since their charitable donations are so generous. Also, the idea of income redistribution may not alleviate the pain; perhaps just add to the suffering.
Not all that benefit from the charity donations is “poor”. Some examples are local churches, local pet adoption agencies, and local boys and clubs. All of these associations need to be financed (by donations) to achieve their initiatives and goals. By redistributing income, and strapping even more of a burden on the wealthier, we may see that however good our intentions are, backfire.
On the other side of the spectrum, the less wealthy, the dependant on government aid, are less likely to donate to charity. This is for several reasons. They tend to be separated from healthy communities, and thus may not have adequate role models and be less likely expected to give to charity. Self reliance is better to instill on human. Relying on another to provide and support unnatural to our instincts and does not promote that of what American is about; innovation, and growth. Government action to increase the living situations of certain people may be rightful in thought, but not play out as anticipated. Less government interference may actually be somewhat of a solution.
Despite certain stereotypes of political parties and their giving habits, it is still our responsibility as a whole, as compassionate people to take a stand and not let organizations that offer such gifts to die off. Give your time to your local charity. Spread your compassion throughout the community.
jamielkelling - September 30, 2008 at 6:49 pm