Why do Americans give?

‘Liberty ... in imminent danger’
The commissioner of revenue, Daniel C. Roper, explained the law in a political journal in January 1918. He began with the tale of a confused “old darkey” in a “southern town,” speaking in an Uncle Remus-like dialect, Roper’s clumsy stab at illustrating the challenge of administering the new tax. The commissioner went on to argue “the enemy is at the door, liberty and its institutions are in imminent danger … Any other program or policy of administration would injure our cause and help the Kaiser.”

So public discussion of the tax, and the charitable deduction, reflected not the high-minded notions of a community dedicated to selfless giving, but the easy arrogance of the bureaucratic superstructure of an emergent world power. It seemed to presage the 1920s — but the 1920s of Warren Harding, not that of Will Rogers.

Nevertheless, the question of donor motivation is complicated, as our lawyer-philosopher asserts. After all, America did manage to shine its spotlight on both Harding and Rogers in the same jazz-besotted 10-year span. Its people, their interests and their motivations for giving to the less fortunate were increasingly diverse.

Subsequent Congresses altered the deduction as they changed the broader tax codes. Periodic debates centered on what a donor loses when he gives to charity, how the tax code should reflect that, and whether the motivation to give is different for different levels of income.

The notions of greed and generosity occasionally leavened the debates, but they mostly played out in a framework of dry legalisms with scant public engagement. The political challenge remained unaltered:  maintain a charity deduction that is fair, equitable and effective — different and somewhat competing goals. In practical terms, it comes down to figuring out the marginal rate at which the tax is applied, and balancing the twin facets of motivation: benevolence and financial advantage.

As lawmakers turned the tax code into an indecipherable jumble of clauses and schedules, public notions about charities continued to evolve on a more or less parallel (and similarly complicated) track through the 20th Century. Americans continued to give, and they developed a full-blooded mistrust of the charity world.

Special-interest debate and doubts
So who are we, really, if our public debate over charity tax deductions is reduced to a struggle among charity lobbyists, corporate lawyers and the institutional vagaries of the Congress, while our notion of individual charities is clouded by scams, bad management and a vague idea that these organizations spend too much on administration, and too little on programs?

Why, indeed, do we give?

Independent Sector, a charity umbrella group, is one of the many organizations that periodically examine the question. In its most recent comprehensive study, in 2001, 84 percent of donors said they believe they can improve the welfare of others.

They cite many reasons — religious obligations, someone they know asked them to give, people with more should give to those with less. And while only 20 percent of households that contribute cite the tax deduction, wealthier contributors cite tax advantages as considerably more important.

Eugene Tempel, executive director of the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, says his organization’s studies also find varied motivations:

“Typically, people give because they identify with a cause…there are people who feel a responsibility to give back … and often people will say if they are asked by the right person, they will give.”

Americans give at a level four times that of Britain and Germany, he says, which reflects the American character:

“Part of the expectation of our democratic values is the ability to do something in a community the way you want to do it.” Elsewhere, these responsibilities are left to governments. “For example, the private philanthropy that goes into public schools is uniquely American. A group might decide it wants a certain foreign language taught, set up a school foundation, and pay for including it in the curriculum.”

Greedy or generous?
The statistics are dizzying. The opinions of the experts are sophisticated, nuanced and, consequently, inconclusive. We know a little bit about why we give, but the tougher question still looms:

Are we greedy or are we generous?

It’s complicated.  And none of this seems to settle it.

But perhaps this does:

Buried in the 2001 study by Independent Sector is the fact that households in which members volunteer for charitable causes or at their church give more than twice as much money to charities than households with no volunteers.

Congress has chosen not to allow deductions for time donated. Why?

To do that, our lawmakers would have to figure out a way to put a dollar value on volunteer time. They’d have to calculate how much one human being’s time is worth, as opposed to another’s. You could concoct a system based on income, but could you do that fairly in the eyes of the public? No, because the value of one’s time is intangible.

Yet those of us who give time also give twice the money as those who don’t.

It seems then, we give because we are good. The part of the American character that is hopeful and generous — while flawed, while not perfect — is fundamentally intact.

MORE FROM GIVING

Giving Section Front

Salvation Army kettles now take plastic   In sagging economy, man donates bras   Gabriel bears WITNESS to rights abuses Child entrepreneur gives back big Filmmaker Perry gives $1 million to NAACP Chef Paula Deen hit in face by charity ham   Video: Soup kitchen chef raises standard of giving Deer hunters help feed the hungry Goldman Sachs on Thanksgiving trash duty Food banks struggle to meet demand Giving Section Front   Add Giving headlines to your news reader: