| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/25 |
| 2004/12/29 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:35469 Activity:high |
12/29 For those who think the US is stingy:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/issues01.asp?v=12/29
"According to the American Association of Fundraising Counsel, we gave
nearly $241 billion to charity last year and have increased our giving
every year for the last 40 except for 1987.
"Clearly, Americans are a generous people, and we are willing to spread
our wealth outside the country. Last year Paula Dobriansky, State
Department undersecretary for global affairs, reported 'Americans
privately give at least $34 billion overseas annually.'"
\_ The quote should say that the American govt is generous. Unless
it's put up to a vote of the people, you can't conclude that the
people are generous.
\_ I wonder how badly the weak dollar is hurting the recipients of this
US aid.
\_ And yet we lag behind many other countries in giving in terms of
%GDP.
\_ And your source is? My understanding is that is only cash
transactions from our government to another government. This
private giving isn't tracked at all.
\_ E'ist:
http://www.economist.com/diversions/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2963247
\_ http://tinyurl.com/6vhdu (economist)
Though looking at their source (http://www.jhu.edu/~cnp
I'm going to stop talking. Our numbers don't look too shabby.
\_ "That does not include the $10 billion in official U.S. foreign
aid, though it does include $18 billion in remittances immigrants
send to their home countries."
In other words, Americans send $16B overseas annually, though how
much of that is charity is unclear.
\_ yeah, I believe that. US is owned, controlled, and run by the
Corporation and the people who run the Corporation, and the
government is just a facade. |
| 5/25 |
|
| www.investors.com/editorial/issues01.asp?v=12/29 Wednesday, December 29, 2004 American Generosity INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Humanitarian Aid: A United Nations official criticized the West for being "stingy" with disaster relief for the tsunami-wrecked nations. "Chr istmastime should remind many Western countries at least (of) how rich w e have become." Egeland, a Norwegian, seemed particularly offended by the $35 million off ered Monday by the Bush administration. That is likely just a first inst allment and nearly nine times the initial pledge of the European Union, which has a bigger economy. Still, Egeland believes more would be availa ble if Western nations would just raise taxes. Such a loathsome attitude brings a couple of things to mind. First, if Eg eland is looking for charity freely given in the spirit of Christmas o r for the sake of humanity he shouldn't encourage tax hikes. Second, Egeland, who is now predictably saying he was misinterpreted, pre fers aid that is the product of coercion rather than private donations b ecause he can get his hands on the former, but not the latter. The US is, of course, to blame for all the world's ills. America is the world's largest cont ributor of international relief funds. As Egeland himself noted as he ranted that US and European lawmakers won't raise taxes enough to buy more aid because they fear overburdening taxpayers Westerners "wan t to give more." According to the American Association of Fundraising Counsel, we gave nea rly $241 billion to charity last year and have increased our giving ever y year for the last 40 except for 1987. Clearly, Americans are a generous people, and we are willing to spread ou r wealth outside the country. Last year Paula Dobriansky, State Departme nt undersecretary for global affairs, reported "Americans privately give at least $34 billion overseas annually." That does not include the $10 billion in official US foreign aid, thoug h it does include $18 billion in remittances immigrants send to their ho me countries. That still leaves $16 billion sent across the world, which doesn't sound too stingy to us. Oh, but Egeland was talking about state aid, wasn't he ? Maybe governments should be more tightfisted since they're handing out ot her people's money. That would leave taxpayers with more options, includ ing funding disaster relief minus the bureaucratic handling fee. The Coming Melt-Up By Fisher Investments Global stock markets in the third quarter continued to trade in unusually narrow ranges, typifying the year to date. Most equity indexes recorded small losses for the period. These trends should end soon, and we expec t significant upside volatility to characterize the next several months. com Companies must comply with the toughest part of Sarbanes-Oxley this Nove mber or next July. Meaningful preparations couldn't begin until rules we re clarified in June. How Investors Can Benefit From Company Conference Calls By Tom Burnet t, CFA. Managing Director of Institutional Trading, Wall Street Access As the Internet and other electronic communications tools have been more widely embraced by public companies, investors have learned how benefici al these tools can be as enhancements to corporate disclosure policy. On the Road with HP By John Dayan, Senior Director, Handheld PC Busin ess, Americas Region, Hewlett-Packard Company With secure mobility solutions and an array of wireless devices - includi ng wireless notebooks, Tablet PCs, iPAQ Pocket PCs, printers and project ors - HP provides the best mobility solutions for your business. Price an d Volume data is delayed 20 minutes unless otherwise noted, is believed accurate but is not warranted or guaranteed by HyperFeed Technologies, I nc. Investor 's Business Daily is a registered trademark of Investor's Business Daily , Inc. |
| www.economist.com/diversions/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2963247 E-mail this Philanthropy Doing well and doing good Jul 29th 2004 From The Economist print edition Why a new golden age of philanthropy may be dawning THAT patron saint of American philanthropy, Andrew Carnegie, believed tha t the man who dies rich, dies disgraced. He disposed of 90% of his vas t fortune by the end of his life. Carnegie and John Rockefeller were the giants of what now seems a golden age of philanthropy, as the 19th cent ury gave way to the 20th. Now, another golden age may be about to dawn, and for similar reasons: in equality is a friend of philanthropy, and large fortunes encourage indiv idual generosity. Bill Gates of Microsoft and Pierre Omidyar of eBay are today's Carnegies: successful entrepreneurs who are rebranding themselv es as imaginative philanthropists. And yet to predict another golden age requires a leap of faith. The lates t figures published by Giving USA, an annual survey compiled by the Cent re on Philanthropy at Indiana University, do indeed suggest that America 's giving has risen: it has been 2% or more of GDP since 1998, following more than two decades below that mark, and last year total contribution s were 22% of GDP, only a whisker below the all-time high of 23% in 20 00 (see chart 1). But sceptics ascribe this recent rise to the dotcom bo om, which caused an unexpected surge of wealth that has not yet shrunk b ack into line with the slowdown in the economy. Moreover, in some ways, charities are more beleaguered than in the past. In the United States, where the outpouring of generosity after September 11th 2001 brought charities into the spotlight, the Senate has been hol ding hearings into a succession of nasty scandals; and the Internal Revenue Service has ominously made misbehavio ur at non-profit organisations one of its enforcement priorities. However, on both sides of the Atlantic, there are signs that a new kind o f donor is emerging, with a new approach to giving. Andcruciallythe co mbination of increasing wealth and an ageing population will inevitably lead to more gifts from the living and more bequests from the dead. For the first time in history, says Paul Schervish of Boston College, the principal apostle of a new golden age, more and more people have more m oney than they want to leave to their kids. Tony Knerr, a fund-raising consultant, adds, There is an extraordinary amount of money available. The lack is of good ideas on how to get the basket under the apple tree. Counting apples Measuring philanthropy is difficult, but two things are clear. Private gi ving is small in all rich countries, relative to state spending. And Ame rican generosity outstrips that of most other countries, especially in m oney terms, and particularly if gifts to religious bodies are included. Excluding do nations to religious congregations (an important point where America is concerned), giving varied in developed countries in the second half of t he 1990s from around 1% of GDP in the United States (and 13% in Israel, where much generosity comes from abroad) to less than 01% in Italy, wh ere cash donations account for the same proportion of GDP as they do in India (see chart 2). But such figures are generally dwarfed by what the state spends on social welfare, and international differences in social spending vastly outwei gh those in private generosity. For instance, in America, spending on so cial welfare accounts for 18% of GDP; That gap dwarfs t he gap of four-tenths of 1% of GDP in non-religious charitable donations . Mr Salamon's work, which will form th e basis for new United Nations guidelines on national accounts, allowing countries for the first time to compare philanthropy and volunteering, finds that gifts of money are generally less important than gifts of tim e Around 60% of private giving takes the form of volunteering, the valu e of which he measures by ascribing to it the average wage of a communit y worker. Volunteering turns out to be particularly high in the Netherla nds, Sweden and other Scandinavian countries, as well as in a few develo ping countries. In America, the balance between gifts of time and of cas h is more equal (if those to religious bodies are excluded) than in most of Europe. Most religions en courage giving, often setting a benchmark (10% is the goal of Christians , Jews and Sikhs alike). For Muslims, the Zakat or charity tax is the fo urth pillar of Islam, as important as prayer, fasting or pilgrimage. In America, religion accounts for a staggering (to non-Americans) share o f donations: 62%, according to Indiana University's Centre on Philanthro py Panel Study (COPPS), which looks at what a cross-section of individua ls do over a period of time, rather than at what some donors put on thei r tax returns. Every income group gives more to religious causes than to non-religious. On adjusted figures, says Richard Steinberg, of Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, the poorest fifth of the popu lation gives an average of $234 a year to religion and $85 to other caus es; and black people give $924 to religion, compared with $439 to non-re ligious causes. In Europe, giving to religion is almost certainly lower, although not alw ays as low as some believe. In Germany, for example, a voluntary churc h tax collects an astonishing 85 billion ($99 billion) a year. In Bri tain, a recent study of charity trends by the Charities Aid Foundation, a non-profit body, found that 10% of income given to the 500 largest cha rities went to faith-based organisations. America's religious enthusiasm partly explains its relative generosity. Q uite a lot of research confirms that religious folk are more generous ov erall than non-believers. Indeed, COPPS figures suggest that people who profess a religion are more likely to make a gift and to make a larger g ift than people who say they have no religion. Intriguingly, other work suggests that Jews who se faith fades give less than those who remain believers. On the face of it, the idea of working to earn money, only to give it away is an odd one. Economists, typicall y baffled by selflessness, have tended to hunt for hidden self-interest in apparent altruism. found the reverse: people ga ve more willingly if they could cloak their altruism in apparent self-in terest. When asked to give to a highly worthy cause (to help emotionally disturbed children), the donation rate trebled if donors were offered a product in exchange for their gift. But when asked to give to a mildly worthy cause (helping a team to buy sports equipment), the offer of a pr esent made no difference. No wonder that wise charities work hard to fin d ways to reward donors. Increasingly, some governments wonder whether to try to bolster philanthr opy. Even before George Bush senior sang the praises of a thousand poin ts of light, Americans have never had any doubt. Many argue that commun ity organisations and volunteering strengthen society. But, where public provision of social services is the norm, as in most of continental Eur ope, governments have been more ambivalent, seeing private provision as a sign of state failure. In America, says Felicity von Peter, who organi sed a workshop on giving for the Bertelsmann Foundation, donors believe that they can spend money more effectively than the state. In Europe, th ey are more likely to see private philanthropy as complementary to state action. Everywhere, an ageing populat ion is starting to stretch the capacity of the welfare state. So the mot ivation for bolstering philanthropy is likely to be pragmatic: to fill i n the gaps in state provision and to widen the financial support of non- profits, which are frequently channels for state cash. But that is an un inspiring vision compared with Mr Bush's points of light and an appeal t o community spirit. A striking sign of Europe's change of attitude: the British government ha s helped to back the Giving Campaign, a three-year effort to increase charitable giving, especially in tax-efficient ways, and has made the ta x treatment of gifts more generous. But if governments want people to be more generous, can they do much about it? Certainly, the tax treatment of charitab... |
| tinyurl.com/6vhdu -> www.economist.com/diversions/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2963247 E-mail this Philanthropy Doing well and doing good Jul 29th 2004 From The Economist print edition Why a new golden age of philanthropy may be dawning THAT patron saint of American philanthropy, Andrew Carnegie, believed tha t the man who dies rich, dies disgraced. He disposed of 90% of his vas t fortune by the end of his life. Carnegie and John Rockefeller were the giants of what now seems a golden age of philanthropy, as the 19th cent ury gave way to the 20th. Now, another golden age may be about to dawn, and for similar reasons: in equality is a friend of philanthropy, and large fortunes encourage indiv idual generosity. Bill Gates of Microsoft and Pierre Omidyar of eBay are today's Carnegies: successful entrepreneurs who are rebranding themselv es as imaginative philanthropists. And yet to predict another golden age requires a leap of faith. The lates t figures published by Giving USA, an annual survey compiled by the Cent re on Philanthropy at Indiana University, do indeed suggest that America 's giving has risen: it has been 2% or more of GDP since 1998, following more than two decades below that mark, and last year total contribution s were 22% of GDP, only a whisker below the all-time high of 23% in 20 00 (see chart 1). But sceptics ascribe this recent rise to the dotcom bo om, which caused an unexpected surge of wealth that has not yet shrunk b ack into line with the slowdown in the economy. Moreover, in some ways, charities are more beleaguered than in the past. In the United States, where the outpouring of generosity after September 11th 2001 brought charities into the spotlight, the Senate has been hol ding hearings into a succession of nasty scandals; and the Internal Revenue Service has ominously made misbehavio ur at non-profit organisations one of its enforcement priorities. However, on both sides of the Atlantic, there are signs that a new kind o f donor is emerging, with a new approach to giving. Andcruciallythe co mbination of increasing wealth and an ageing population will inevitably lead to more gifts from the living and more bequests from the dead. For the first time in history, says Paul Schervish of Boston College, the principal apostle of a new golden age, more and more people have more m oney than they want to leave to their kids. Tony Knerr, a fund-raising consultant, adds, There is an extraordinary amount of money available. The lack is of good ideas on how to get the basket under the apple tree. Counting apples Measuring philanthropy is difficult, but two things are clear. Private gi ving is small in all rich countries, relative to state spending. And Ame rican generosity outstrips that of most other countries, especially in m oney terms, and particularly if gifts to religious bodies are included. Excluding do nations to religious congregations (an important point where America is concerned), giving varied in developed countries in the second half of t he 1990s from around 1% of GDP in the United States (and 13% in Israel, where much generosity comes from abroad) to less than 01% in Italy, wh ere cash donations account for the same proportion of GDP as they do in India (see chart 2). But such figures are generally dwarfed by what the state spends on social welfare, and international differences in social spending vastly outwei gh those in private generosity. For instance, in America, spending on so cial welfare accounts for 18% of GDP; That gap dwarfs t he gap of four-tenths of 1% of GDP in non-religious charitable donations . Mr Salamon's work, which will form th e basis for new United Nations guidelines on national accounts, allowing countries for the first time to compare philanthropy and volunteering, finds that gifts of money are generally less important than gifts of tim e Around 60% of private giving takes the form of volunteering, the valu e of which he measures by ascribing to it the average wage of a communit y worker. Volunteering turns out to be particularly high in the Netherla nds, Sweden and other Scandinavian countries, as well as in a few develo ping countries. In America, the balance between gifts of time and of cas h is more equal (if those to religious bodies are excluded) than in most of Europe. Most religions en courage giving, often setting a benchmark (10% is the goal of Christians , Jews and Sikhs alike). For Muslims, the Zakat or charity tax is the fo urth pillar of Islam, as important as prayer, fasting or pilgrimage. In America, religion accounts for a staggering (to non-Americans) share o f donations: 62%, according to Indiana University's Centre on Philanthro py Panel Study (COPPS), which looks at what a cross-section of individua ls do over a period of time, rather than at what some donors put on thei r tax returns. Every income group gives more to religious causes than to non-religious. On adjusted figures, says Richard Steinberg, of Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, the poorest fifth of the popu lation gives an average of $234 a year to religion and $85 to other caus es; and black people give $924 to religion, compared with $439 to non-re ligious causes. In Europe, giving to religion is almost certainly lower, although not alw ays as low as some believe. In Germany, for example, a voluntary churc h tax collects an astonishing 85 billion ($99 billion) a year. In Bri tain, a recent study of charity trends by the Charities Aid Foundation, a non-profit body, found that 10% of income given to the 500 largest cha rities went to faith-based organisations. America's religious enthusiasm partly explains its relative generosity. Q uite a lot of research confirms that religious folk are more generous ov erall than non-believers. Indeed, COPPS figures suggest that people who profess a religion are more likely to make a gift and to make a larger g ift than people who say they have no religion. Intriguingly, other work suggests that Jews who se faith fades give less than those who remain believers. On the face of it, the idea of working to earn money, only to give it away is an odd one. Economists, typicall y baffled by selflessness, have tended to hunt for hidden self-interest in apparent altruism. found the reverse: people ga ve more willingly if they could cloak their altruism in apparent self-in terest. When asked to give to a highly worthy cause (to help emotionally disturbed children), the donation rate trebled if donors were offered a product in exchange for their gift. But when asked to give to a mildly worthy cause (helping a team to buy sports equipment), the offer of a pr esent made no difference. No wonder that wise charities work hard to fin d ways to reward donors. Increasingly, some governments wonder whether to try to bolster philanthr opy. Even before George Bush senior sang the praises of a thousand poin ts of light, Americans have never had any doubt. Many argue that commun ity organisations and volunteering strengthen society. But, where public provision of social services is the norm, as in most of continental Eur ope, governments have been more ambivalent, seeing private provision as a sign of state failure. In America, says Felicity von Peter, who organi sed a workshop on giving for the Bertelsmann Foundation, donors believe that they can spend money more effectively than the state. In Europe, th ey are more likely to see private philanthropy as complementary to state action. Everywhere, an ageing populat ion is starting to stretch the capacity of the welfare state. So the mot ivation for bolstering philanthropy is likely to be pragmatic: to fill i n the gaps in state provision and to widen the financial support of non- profits, which are frequently channels for state cash. But that is an un inspiring vision compared with Mr Bush's points of light and an appeal t o community spirit. A striking sign of Europe's change of attitude: the British government ha s helped to back the Giving Campaign, a three-year effort to increase charitable giving, especially in tax-efficient ways, and has made the ta x treatment of gifts more generous. But if governments want people to be more generous, can they do much about it? Certainly, the tax treatment of charitab... |
| www.jhu.edu/~cnp -> www.jhu.edu/~cnp/ Global Civil Society: Dimensions of the Nonprof it Sector Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project The Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project is a systematic ef fort to analyze the scope, structure, financing, and role of the private nonprofit sector in a cross-section of countries around the world in or der to improve our knowledge and enrich our theoretical understanding of this sector, and to provide a sounder basis for both public and private action towards it. |