In the category of obvious things that are obvious comes the revelation that on average, Americans are quite a bit more generous than Canadians. According to a new study released today by the Fraser Institute, Americans gave on average just over twice as much of their incomes to charity as Canadians did in 2011 (1.33% vs. 0.64%). In other breaking news, it has been confirmed that gravity makes things fall down, not up.
Why am I not surprised that Americans are more generous with their money? Simply because their various levels of government allow them to keep a lot more of it. Tax Freedom Day—the day of the year when the country as a whole has earned enough to pay its total annual tax bill—fell on April 18 this year in the US. In Canada, it fell on June 10. It makes perfect sense to me that being less heavily taxed than we are, Americans are less likely to feel that they "gave at the office" and that government workers are taking care of the needy.
I'm not saying that there's a perfect (inverse) correlation between the size of government and the level of charitable giving in a society. Just for starters, governments do many other things—some legitimate, many not, in my opinion—besides running welfare programs. And it's not hard to think of many other factors that would affect generosity besides the total tax burden.
But government welfare undoubtedly does crowd out voluntary charity to some substantial extent. And this has many unfortunate consequences, including bureaucratic inefficiency; abuse of the system by those who don't really need it; an entitlement mentality among beneficiaries; and a lack of that charitable glow among "givers" who have no choice in the matter and no real contact with the people they help.
Most supporters of government welfare programs are surely aware of these serious shortcomings; they just fear that absent funding through taxation, many poor people would go without the basic necessities. But what if being less heavily taxed made us far richer and led us to donate far more of our higher incomes to the needy, both at home and abroad? What if this money were more carefully spent to fund better-targeted programs? And what if it would be healthier, psychologically, for both givers and recipients of aid to be involved in transactions that are voluntary and transparent? What if our fear is keeping us from realizing just how generous we can be?
I'm not saying that there's a perfect (inverse) correlation between the size of government and the level of charitable giving in a society. Just for starters, governments do many other things—some legitimate, many not, in my opinion—besides running welfare programs. And it's not hard to think of many other factors that would affect generosity besides the total tax burden.
But government welfare undoubtedly does crowd out voluntary charity to some substantial extent. And this has many unfortunate consequences, including bureaucratic inefficiency; abuse of the system by those who don't really need it; an entitlement mentality among beneficiaries; and a lack of that charitable glow among "givers" who have no choice in the matter and no real contact with the people they help.
Most supporters of government welfare programs are surely aware of these serious shortcomings; they just fear that absent funding through taxation, many poor people would go without the basic necessities. But what if being less heavily taxed made us far richer and led us to donate far more of our higher incomes to the needy, both at home and abroad? What if this money were more carefully spent to fund better-targeted programs? And what if it would be healthier, psychologically, for both givers and recipients of aid to be involved in transactions that are voluntary and transparent? What if our fear is keeping us from realizing just how generous we can be?