• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The Compassion Gap & Generosity of the Poor

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Interesting article: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/o...the-compassion-gap.html?src=ISMR_AP_LO_MST_FB

A few things which stood out to me:

A professor at Princeton found that our brains sometimes process images of people who are poor or homeless as if they were not humans but things.

Likewise, psychology experiments suggest that affluence may erode compassion. When research subjects are asked to imagine great wealth, or just look at a computer screen saver with money, they become less inclined to share or help others. That may be why the poorest 20 percent of Americans give away a larger share of their incomes than the wealthiest 20 percent.

A Pew survey this year found that a majority of Republicans, and almost one-third of Democrats, believe that if a person is poor the main reason is “lack of effort on his or her part.”

The bolded are things I suggested in another thread not too long ago. It was based on my personal theories & observations, but I'm not surprised to see these findings.

What do you think about the "compassion gap"?
True? False? Justifiable? Why or why not?
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
There has been a lot of studies on this exact topic in the past decade, and every year it seems like a news article like this comes up. It's quite fascinating to me, and it seems quite counter-intuitive on the surface.

If the research shows evidence that it's true, then it must be. On an intuitive level, I think nearly everyone would agree that (most of) those who are more well off, are less likely to be compassionate towards others. In particular to those who are deemed "below" them in some regard. In this study it's referring to just money, but it can be extended. Those who stand on a higher pecking order tend to care less about those who are below them. We see this in social circles, work, media, etc.

What is surprising to most, is the evidence that folks who are less well off are more compassionate, caring, and giving. The reasoning is usually that since they have less, the truly get what it is like to not have it, and don't want others in similar situation to suffer. They have also established that giving to others uplifts mood and makes one feel better in a rather long lasting way for most individuals. So there would be drive for them to do it as well. It makes them feel better about a shitty situation, and it helps someone else. So it simply makes the most sense on an emotional level. Although it is not exactly practical to do.

As for how to solve this? I don't really think it's possible. I do not see in any of our lifetimes, that poverty will be fixed. I honestly think it is inevitiable in the world due to the nature of large groups, and inherient greed in most. We really would have to change human nature to fix it. There will always be a minority of individuals who just won't care. Even if they used to be poor and know what it's like. We all have that potential, and education can stop it, but only for some. Personalites are diverse, and some just don't care. It is what it is. We'd never be able to solve this unless we eliminated those personalities from the top positions, and it won't happen. In a lot of ways we need them.

I think what would be better is to teach understanding, not so much compassion. It won't solve the problem though. Fixing it takes A LOT of energy, way more than nearly everyone has. It also doesn't really have a direct impact, and you'll never be able to get people to care enough to do it.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
It's that same Victorian mentality that poverty is a punishment for moral failings. :dont:

Personally, I think people choose to find excuses not to empathise to spare themselves the pangs of sympathy. To admit that poverty is a problem and it's not the poor's fault puts yourself in a unpleasant position, because it raises uncomfortable questions: "Why is this happening?", "Am I partially to blame?", "What can be done about it?". Every child you see going without pains you a little inside and the seemingly insurmountable hopelessless of it all is very disheartening. It's easier to find some rationale for why it's justified and why we shouldn't care, and absolve yourself of empathy/guilt/pain/responsibility.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Luke 21:1-4

Jesus looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the offering box, and he saw a poor widow put in two small copper coins. And he said, “Truly, I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all of them. For they all contributed out of their abundance, but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”
What surprises me is how many of these wealthy also claim to be Christian.
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
The wealthy give less to charity because they pay a lot more taxes compared to the poor. The top 5% of income earners in the U.S. pays 60% of the federal income taxes, while making 37% of the total income. The bottom 50% pays 3% but earn 12% of the total income. If the government taxed less, everyone would be more generous.

Another thing to consider: the wealthy Americans are very frequently business owners who have to pay corporate taxes, payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, and a host of benefits to their workers.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The wealthy give less to charity because they pay a lot more taxes compared to the poor. The top 5% of income earners in the U.S. pays 60% of the federal income taxes, while making 37% of the total income. The bottom 50% pays 3% but earn 12% of the total income. If the government taxed less, everyone would be more generous.

Another thing to consider: the wealthy Americans are very frequently business owners who have to pay corporate taxes, payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, and a host of benefits to their workers.
These are taxes on the business as an entity itself, not personal income taxes. If you consider charitable giving as a fraction of disposable income (i.e. what is left after essential expenses are paid, including taxes), I suspect it is still higher for the poor.
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Coriolis said:
If you consider charitable giving as a fraction of disposable income (i.e. what is left after essential expenses are paid, including taxes), I suspect it is still higher for the poor.

You're probably correct, but why should we exclude taxes? Money is money. The fairest way to do it would be to add up all the money given to the govt and to charities divided by your total income before taxes (the gross income).

Compassion Index = (charitable donations + government payments)/ gross income.

The NYT is pushing a wealth redistribution agenda and this is the second editorial or blog post I've seen (posted in these forums) that's pushing the income inequality narrative, which is nonsense.
 
G

Ginkgo

Guest
The studies indicate what happens when you think about dollar bills, but just because someone is wealthy doesn't mean money is on their mind.

That said, I think that the relationship between the amount of liquidity someone possesses and the level of generousness they feel works both ways. No matter what income bracket you find yourself in, the synergy leads to a cycle in which it's difficult to escape/ascend your class. There's also something to be said about how one views money - you can see it as finite and expendable, or you can see it as a fluid asset that evolves over time with the investments you make.

There are kinds of people that shell out money not because of their capacity for empathy, but because it just fits within their schema to blow a paycheck at the end of the week. As much as I wish I could chalk that up to someone feeling the need to benevolently stimulate the economy, I've never met a person who really thinks that way. Furthermore, there's something to be said about the relationship between one's general willingness to give and their willingness to spend; those attitudes could easily fall into the general categories of impulsiveness and openness to experience.

In general, I think if people made a mindful effort to give, then everyone would be happier for it.
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
The wealthy give less to charity because they pay a lot more taxes compared to the poor. The top 5% of income earners in the U.S. pays 60% of the federal income taxes, while making 37% of the total income. The bottom 50% pays 3% but earn 12% of the total income. If the government taxed less, everyone would be more generous.

Another thing to consider: the wealthy Americans are very frequently business owners who have to pay corporate taxes, payroll taxes, unemployment insurance, and a host of benefits to their workers.
:fpalm:

Seriously?
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Southern Kross said:
Seriously?

I'm not sure what you are disputing. There is plenty of evidence that show charitable donations going down when taxes are raised. I might also add that since the bottom quintile is likely receiving government assistance, they aren't actually being being charitable with their own money. They are being "compassionate" with the money taxed and redistributed from the top quintiles.
 

93JC

Active member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
3,989
People don't pay taxes out of the goodness of their hearts. Wealthy people can afford to pay other people to figure out how to pay as little tax as possible, like using charitable donations as a tax credit.
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
My point is that high taxes discourage charitable giving because taxes are an expense and the more expenses you have, the less likely you are to give to a charity. If you are in the top quintile and living in NYC, your tax burden is over 50%. If half of your income is gone, are you more likely or less likely to give? Conversely, are you really more compassionate if you don't have to worry about paying taxes. I don't think so.

Will Donors Give Less if Taxed More?
 

Southern Kross

Away with the fairies
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
2,910
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
so/sp
I'm not sure what you are disputing. There is plenty of evidence that show charitable donations going down when taxes are raised.
Even if that is so (I'd like to see this evidence before I'd believe it), correlation does not imply causation. Besides, the disposable income (which by definition is where charity comes from) of the top percentiles in income are in no way comparable to that of the bottom percentiles. If more taxes make the rich less generous it's because they're so greedy that any extra penny taken unwillingly from their pocket makes them all the more bitter and miserly with the money they do have - which is just about the most pathetic excuse I've ever heard.

I might also add that since the bottom quintile is likely receiving government assistance, they aren't actually being being charitable with their own money.
Why do you see this as a problem? They are distributing their limited means have to those that need it more. Isn't that a relative win-win in terms of welfare distribution?

They are being "compassionate" with the money taxed and redistributed from the top quintiles.
So taxes = charity now? Oh, please. :rolleyes:
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Southern Kross said:
If more taxes make the rich less generous it's because they're so greedy that any extra penny taken unwillingly from their pocket makes them all the more bitter and miserly with the money they do have - which is just about the most pathetic excuse I've ever heard.

Taxes are an expense. If someone has a lot of expenses, whether it be alimony payments, mortgage payments, or medical bills, they aren't going to be as charitable because donations are an expense as well. This has nothing to do with greed or compassion.

Why do you see this as a problem? They are distributing their limited means have to those that need it more. Isn't that a relative win-win in terms of welfare distribution?

My problem is with the NYT article because it's misleading. It misleads by not pointing out that the rich have more expenses and that's why they give less to charities.
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
You're probably correct, but why should we exclude taxes? Money is money. The fairest way to do it would be to add up all the money given to the govt and to charities divided by your total income before taxes (the gross income).

Compassion Index = (charitable donations + government payments)/ gross income.

The NYT is pushing a wealth redistribution agenda and this is the second editorial or blog post I've seen (posted in these forums) that's pushing the income inequality narrative, which is nonsense.

Why would you include mandatory payments in a calculation of altruism? People pay taxes because they legally have to, not out of the goodness of their hearts. Plus in the United States the average tax evader is also in the highest tax bracket and evades by overreporting charitable donation. That suggests there is a trend (though not linear of course, a more complex function) to evade as income increases, and also to lie about charity as income increases. Neither of those correlations really suggests increased compassion to me.

That all said, I think it's probably more complicated than just the poor being more generous. I think amongst the poor there are also probably variables like religious adherence that play in with a more intricate relationship. I think [MENTION=20829]Hard[/MENTION] probably hit the nail on the head with:

What is surprising to most, is the evidence that folks who are less well off are more compassionate, caring, and giving. The reasoning is usually that since they have less, the truly get what it is like to not have it, and don't want others in similar situation to suffer. They have also established that giving to others uplifts mood and makes one feel better in a rather long lasting way for most individuals. So there would be drive for them to do it as well. It makes them feel better about a shitty situation, and it helps someone else. So it simply makes the most sense on an emotional level. Although it is not exactly practical to do.

If you've never been down and out, it's hard to understand how being down and out feels like. Some people who are particularly privileged and insulated may even believe that they did something to "earn" their privilege.

Like with most problems, I think the answer is greater contact and education. But a different sort of education... not prep school education. Education as in mingling with real people in real places. Education as in learning the life conditions of people in other places. Education as in meeting face-to-face and speaking with people who face poverty. But I don't know how to make that a reality. How do you overcome stigma to overcome stigma?
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
skylights said:
Why would you include mandatory payments in a calculation of altruism?

Because mandatory payments are an expense and having expenses will affect any decisions to spend; simply, taxes (and having other expenses) affect altruism.

That all said, I think it's probably more complicated than just the poor being more generous.

That's what the NYT article is missing. It's a one-sided perspective because it's deliberately pitching an anti-rich guy narrative. It doesn't examine why the rich don't pay more because the author wants to villainize the successful. Instead, he goes for the "the poor are so much better than the rich" nonsense. Expect to see more rich vs poor and income inequality crap from the NYT as the 2014 election nears. This is simply a tactic to turn out the base.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Besides, the disposable income (which by definition is where charity comes from) of the top percentiles in income are in no way comparable to that of the bottom percentiles.

Exactly. The rich give out of their excess. It doesn't affect their own quality of life. It's not self-sacrificing.
The poor are giving out of their own "need".
 

grey_beard

The Typing Tabby
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
1,478
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Exactly. The rich give out of their excess. It doesn't affect their own quality of life. It's not self-sacrificing.
The poor are giving out of their own "need".
[MENTION=6561]OrangeAppled[/MENTION] --

The poor know what it's like...and I guess the ones whose lifestyle dysfunction does not entrap them in poverty, know the difference between "want" and "need" and NEED.



I think it was Walter E. Willaims who pointed out

"Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from high school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married. Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the minimum wage. And, finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior. If you graduate from high school today with a B or C average, in most places in our country there's a low-cost or financially assisted post-high-school education program available to increase your skills. "

My take on this is:

Some of the poor have self-defeating habits; and of those, some are victims who were battered into being a mess on the inside, through the fault of others; others are
paying in spades for poor choices of their own, where the consequences they were saddled with, are more than they bargained for; and some are the victims of large-scale
economic trends (decline of labor unions, mechanization, offshoring).

But in any case, it still doesn't make it any easier to climb out.


[MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] --

I think there is a mixed bag, of those who don't give, vs. those who give in secret, since you quoted from "the widow's mite"; and that is Matthew 6: 2-4 --

2"So when you give to the poor, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be honored by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. 3"But when you give to the poor, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving will be in secret; and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.


For instance, reporters discovered that Vice President Joe Biden donated an average of $369 a year to charity. In 1997, reporters unearthed that then-Vice President Al Gore only donated $353 to charity the previous year.

Source: http://www.humanevents.com/2010/12/29/conservatives-more-charitable-than-liberal-scrooges/
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
So taxes = charity now? Oh, please. :rolleyes:
Of course they are not charity, but they can be used for many of the same purposes. In places with higher taxes, there is often a broader range of services available to more people (i.e. children, elderly, disabled, poor), services otherwise paid for through charity. The 19th and early 20th century mentality was to leave these services to charitable organizations supported through voluntary donations. We see how well that worked. Yes, there were wealthy donors who set up free clinics, children's homes, soup kitchens, etc. but coverage was very uneven and did not come close to meeting needs in most places.

Funding such services through taxes provides a higher and more consistent level of funding; spreads the funding burden across a larger pool of people; and makes a given service available more consistently across the population. So, in this respect if raising taxes on the wealthy causes them to donate less to charity, it may still be the better bargain. Sooner or later, we all pay anyway; better sooner, and less.
 
Top