Taxes and Charity?

[marcmagus]

It just occurred to me to wonder, and I figure someone must have done the math already, but if not, someone should. What percentage of the money we give to the government in taxes goes to charity, in the sense of humanitarian aid? How much of what I pay goes to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to heal the sick?

In the past, I've assumed that number exceeded 10% of my income. I'm suddenly curious if it really does. Does the government, with all the money it forces me to give to all sorts of places, in all sorts of ways, have the effect of forcing me to meet my minimum duty of tzedakah? Can I relax in knowing that anything I choose to give is above and beyond? If not, how much more need I give before I cross that line to where it's what I can and choose to give rather than what I must or am expected to?

Comments

[heptadecagram.livejournal.com]

Oh, it's not even close.

Federal spending on the aid you describe makes up about 6.9% of all spending (Source). So, even if you were taxed at 100% of your income, you'd need to take out a loan to donate to charity.

By my calculation, the average person in the US would have paid about 1% of their tzedek.

Re: not 'how much', but just 'how'

[marcmagus]

"great question. but i prefer to focus on the 'quality' vs 'quantity' factor. that is, yes, i think one should give 10% or more to tzedakah, but if you are only giving 6%, then make it count!

someone who gives 15% but gives it to organizations with high overheads, high fundraising costs, lots of salaries, etc. wastes most of their donation, whereas, someone who gives only 6% but gives it efficiently, can have a much greater impact....

for example, check out: [redacted] for places that i have personally reviewed and done due diligence on.

arnie draiman
[website redacted]"

[I'm quoting the anonymous reply I'm responding to here, because I plan to delete it. It is quasi-topical, and I feel that portion is worth replying to, but I don't appreciate my journal being used as an advertising medium, even by people who are purportedly doing good works. I'm leaving the name portion of the signature, so people who want to research them may do so.]


Of course it's far more important whether the money is given to a cause which will use it effectively than exactly how much is given. I'd hoped that would go without saying, but perhaps not; certainly some people need to hear it.

However, the percentage guideline is useful so that one can look at what they've given and know if they're even in the ballpark of giving appropriately. And what I was interested in exploring has much more to do with the number--do taxes bring us anywhere near it, or should a person expect to make contributions in excess of their tax burden to be doing their part. heptadecagram's calculation gives a clear answer to that question even if his estimate of total tax burden is way off (due to only accounting for income tax). This result is interesting.

Re: not 'how much', but just 'how'

[marcmagus]

Thanks. That's exactly what I wanted to know.

I haven't checked your math yet, but your last sentence is potentially ambiguous. Do you mean that the average person remains to give 9% of their income or 9.9% of their income?

[heptadecagram.livejournal.com]

Whoops, you're right, I wrote that wrong. They have 9% of their income left to give.