Wednesday, March 28, 2012


Inspired by a comment - at Volokh's I think.

Ebeneezer Scrooge noted that he didn't see any point in private charity, because his taxes already supported programs for the poor - workhouses and prisons were the programs he referred to by name.

Self-identified liberals, though they make 6% more than self-identified conservatives, give about 25% less to private charity, even after church giving is subtracted out, according to Arthur C. Brooks. (And if you subtract out arts giving, the numbers get even worse.)

So Scrooge was a liberal...

All right, fair enough, I don't really think that liberals are like E. Scrooge. I just like the irony, in the face of how often that accusation flies the other way.

Related:  That goes double for giving blood.  If liberals and moderates gave at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply would increase by 45%.  That's a big number.  So when you hear appeals for blood donations, think "Ah, the liberals are falling down on the job again."  There are legitimate qualifiers to all the numbers above, but the point still holds.

1 comment:

Sam L. said...

Charity? It ain't their job. Gummint's what's s'posed to do that. That way, they don't get involved with those low-class folks with problems.