America's Poor Are Its Most Generous Givers
The generosity of poor people isn't so much rare as rarely noticed, however. In fact, America's poor donate more, in percentage terms, than higher-income groups do, surveys of charitable giving show. What's more, their generosity declines less in hard times than the generosity of richer givers does.
"The lowest-income fifth (of the population) always give at more than their capacity," said Virginia Hodgkinson, former vice president for research at Independent Sector, a Washington-based association of major nonprofit agencies. "The next two-fifths give at capacity, and those above that are capable of giving two or three times more than they give."
Indeed, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' latest survey of consumer expenditure found that the poorest fifth of America's households contributed an average of 4.3 percent of their incomes to charitable organizations in 2007. The richest fifth gave at less than half that rate, 2.1 percent.
The figures probably undercount remittances by legal and illegal immigrants to family and friends back home, a multibillion-dollar outlay to which the poor contribute disproportionally.
None of the middle fifths of America's households, in contrast, gave away as much as 3 percent of their incomes.
"As a rule, people who have money don't know people in need," saId Tanya Davis, 40, a laid-off security guard and single mother.
Certainly, better-off people aren't hit up by friends and kin as often as Davis said she was, having earned a reputation for generosity while she was working.
Now getting by on $110 a week in unemployment insurance and $314 a month in welfare, Davis still fields two or three appeals a week, she said, and lays out $5 or $10 weekly.
To explain her giving, Davis offered the two reasons most commonly heard in three days of conversations with low-income donors:
"I believe that the more I give, the more I receive, and that God loves a cheerful giver," Davis said. "Plus I've been in their position, and someday I might be again."
Herbert Smith, 31, a Seventh-day Adventist who said he tithed his $1,010 monthly disability check — giving away 10 percent of it — thought that poor people give more because, in some ways, they worry less about their money.
"We're not scared of poverty the way rich people are," he said. "We know how to get the lights back on when we can't pay the electric bill."
In terms of income, the poorest fifth seem unlikely benefactors. Their pretax household incomes averaged $10,531 in 2007, according to the BLS survey, compared with $158,388 for the top fifth.
In addition, its members are the least educated fifth of the U.S. population, the oldest, the most religious and the likeliest to rent their homes, according to demographers. They're also the most likely fifth to be on welfare, to drive used cars or rely on public transportation, to be students, minorities, women and recent immigrants.
However, many of these characteristics predict generosity. Women are more generous than men, studies have shown. Older people give more than younger donors with equal incomes. The working poor, disproportionate numbers of which are recent immigrants, are America's most generous group, according to Arthur Brooks, the author of the book "Who Really Cares," an analysis of U.S. generosity.
Faith probably matters most, Brooks — who's the president of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington policy-research organization — said in an interview. That's partly because above-average numbers of poor people go to church, and church attenders give more money than non-attenders to secular and religious charities, Brooks found.
Moreover, disproportionate numbers of poor people belong to congregations that tithe.
Less-religious givers such as Emel Sweeney, 73, a retired bookkeeper, say that giving lights up their lives.
"Have you ever looked into the face of someone you're being generous to?" Sweeney asked with the trace of a Jamaican lilt.
That brought to mind her encounter with a young woman who was struggling to manage four small, tired children on a bus.
They staggered and straggled at a transfer stop, along with Sweeney, who urged the mother to take a nearby cab the rest of the way. When the mother said she had no money, Sweeney gave her $20, she said. The mother, as she piled her brood into the cab, waved and mouthed a thank-you.
"Those words just rested in my chest," Sweeney said, "and as I rode home I was so happy."
Pastor Coletta Jones, who ministers to a largely low-income tithing congregation in southeast Washington, The Rock Christian Church, thinks that poor people give more because they ask for less for themselves.
"When you have just a little, you're thankful for what you have," Jones said, "but with every step you take up the ladder of success, the money clouds your mind and gets you into a state of never being satisfied."
Brooks offered this statistic as supportive evidence: Fifty-eight percent of noncontributors with above-median incomes say they don't have enough money to give any away.
What makes poor people's generosity even more impressive is that their giving generally isn't tax-deductible, because they don't earn enough to justify itemizing their charitable tax deductions. In effect, giving a dollar to charity costs poor people a dollar while it costs deduction itemizers 65 cents.
In addition, measures of generosity typically exclude informal giving, such as that of Davis' late mother, Helen Coleman. Coleman, a Baltimore hotel housekeeper, provided child care, beds and meals for many of her eight children and 32 grandchildren, Davis said.
Federal surveys don't ask about remittances specifically, so it's hard to know how much the poorest fifth sends back home. Remittances from U.S. immigrants totaled more than $100 billion in 2007, according to Manuel Orozco, a senior researcher at Inter-American Dialogue, a Washington policy institute, who specializes in remittances.
By comparison, individual giving to tax-deductible U.S. charities totaled about $220 billion in 2007.
Much of the money remitted comes from struggling U.S. immigrants such as Zenaida Araviza, 42, a Macy's cosmetics clerk and single mother in suburban Arlington, Va.
Araviza, who earns $1,300 a month, goes carless, cable-less and cell phone-less in order to send an aunt in the Philippines $200 a month to care for Araviza's mother, who has Alzheimer's.
"What can I do?" asked Araviza, an attractive, somber woman. "It's my responsibility."
Carmen De Jesus, the chief financial officer and treasurer of Forex Inc., a remittance agency based in Springfield, Va., said low-income Filipino-Americans such as Araviza were her most generous customers.
"The domestic helpers send very, very frequently," she said. "The doctors, less so."
Why are they so generous? Christie Zerrudo, a cashier who handles Filipino remittances at Manila Oriental, a grocery/restaurant/remittance agency in Arlington, offered this explanation:
"It gives the heart comfort when you sit down at the end of the day, and you know that you did your part," Zerrudo said. "You took care of your family. If you eat here, they eat there, too. It would give you stress if they couldn't. But you love them, they are your family, and your love has had an expression."
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
42 Comments so far
Show AllSpeaking from experience, I can say that becoming poor changes your priorities. You realize how easily material possessions and comforts can be stripped away, and then start to understand -- deep in your soul, as corny as that sounds -- what is really important in life. What matters is each other.
So, when you see someone going through hard times, you don't launch into a self-righteous speech about "making good choices" and "taking personal responsibility" -- they are hungry, you understand the hunger, and you help. That's what being human is about.
I think we should start a charity for all the banksters... And pay them with real pennies...
The Fed reserve doesn't bother printing the coins, and it will cost them $$$ to process all those pennies...!
So, the rich aren't so much clever as greedy? I guess it helps to document the obvious sometimes.
"jclientelle May 22nd, 2009 7:47 am
Let's not forget the downside of charity. It is unreliable and can be demeaning. It cannot make up for massive homelessness as we see now on the streets and subways of New York.
People need some assurance of stable opportunity to work and live. I much prefer a society in which charity is not necessary except in extraordinary circumstances."
"Nietzsche May 22nd, 2009 10:24 am
Any society in which charity is necessary has already failed."
Both true. The best society is one in which charity is totally unnecessary, but neither of the above types of views is a valid excuse for letting people starve, etcetera, when we can help them out. Help others when they're in need and also try to work on obtaining governments that are governed in truly just ways. If the latter is achieved, then the help to the needy that'll have been provided during the interim will have been good, and two good things then will have happened, instead of only one, or none at all.
We are never likely to achieve a sufficiently just society, but may as well as try to achieve the establishment of one (as many as possible).
I agree. Since we do not have a just society, we should help others directly. We may not be able to solve the problems, but we are not free to abstain from trying.
Maimonides enumerated the types of charitable giving. The highest category is to enable a poor person to be independent. I think Maimonides' list is thought provoking. Here are the types of giving in moral order...
1. Giving a person independence so that s/he will not have to depend on charity.
----a. Giving a poor person work.
----b. Making a partnership with him or her
----c. Giving an interest-free loan to a person in need.
----d. Giving a grant to a person in need.
2. Giving charity anonymously to an unknown recipient via a person (or public fund) which is trustworthy, wise, and can perform acts of charity with your money in a most impeccable fashion.
3. Giving charity anonymously to a known recipient.
4. Giving charity publicly to an unknown recipient.
5. Giving charity before being asked.
6. Giving adequately after being asked.
7. Giving willingly, but inadequately.
8. Giving "in sadness" - it is thought that Maimonides was referring to giving because of the sad feelings one might have in seeing people in need (as opposed to giving because it is a religious obligation).
Joe
In my experience, when our household income fell by approximately 2/3, our charitable contributions only modestly fell (by maybe 25%).
Some interesting thoughts revealed on this thread. Thank you one and all.
This has always been the case. The poor have always given more to charity than those with more means. I recently sent a letter to my congresswomen pointing out that the tax law needs to be changed for that the reason pointed out in this article. I have donated a lot of time and money to various groups but it wasn't until I had a mortgage with a big deductible interest rate that all that giving finally made a dent in the tax I owed. Each year since I was 16 I've done my taxes and while it started out with the EZ form I worked up to the 1040 and started adding in those charitable givings. Problem is, the deductibles have to be more than the standard deduction. This can be rather frustrating when you see that you donated food, clothes, toys, and gave money that totaled $4000 but the standard deduction is $5000. In other words, the standard deduction acts like you've given even more to charity than you actually do (and don't forget that medical expenses can be added to this too). I am fortunate to have paid off my mortgage but while my charitable giving has increased I no longer get to deduct it. Wealthy people, especially those who've accumulated a lot of assets through inheritance, especially art work, only need donate one overvalued painting to get instance deductions. This is similar in a way to how only the wealthy can afford to pay tax accountants to figure out how to pay less tax or no tax. There's a book out titled "Perfectly Legal" and it's a frustrating read about how the middle class is saddled with disproportionate taxes while the wealthy scheme away with clever accounts to avoid taxes.
It's always been the poor or outlaw who have helped me when I was in a spot. Once a Hells Angel bunch stopped to help me fix my car. While hitch-hiking during the late 60s, with long hair and beads, a young man took me home to dine with his family. He was very conservative, a 'good Christian' and poor. It's happened over and over again. That's why I don't mind letting go of a twenty now and then when someone seems needy.
I've been poor. Not starving but dirt poor, and the worst thing about it is that it takes away your ability to be generous.
I'm still not rich but I have what I need, and I give away much more than I did when I had a double income and was married to a harpie who made my life miserable.
Mean people are usually very unhappy.
azjoe,
It seems like you have things sufficiently going for you to get by without starving, and growing legally certainly sounds interesting. The only way that could be done in Canada, in the province of Quebec anyway, is if a person is growing with government authorisation and only for oneself or for others, but also strictly for medical purposes; people needing medical prescriptions. The laws are at least much less stringent here, the punishment for growing or possession, and probably selling, being nothing like the U.S. has for laws. I doubt that I could make it to California, but thanks for the offer and I'll likely remember it and about what say regarding California; just being unable to make it there as far as I can presently see. There'd have to be real employment for some months or a year before I could afford a relocation that far away; I can't even relocate to the western part of this province, Quebec, where the job market might not be quite excellent these days, but would certainly be much better than where I am now. No wonder students graduating from colleges and universities here take no time at all to get the heck out of here once as soon as they complete the school years.
Viva la revolution? Sure!
Marx? Interesting individual. I've read praises and plenty of criticisms, but came across some of his original writings that have been misattributed to Engels by evidently most people and these writings definitely cause me to want to read more of his actual writings; instead of only reading what others relate or convey about his writings. It helps to make it all the more understandable that truly educated members of the RCC, f.e., have real respect for what he wrote, his views and principles; the only thing I had gathered for difference was that the clergy I had spoken with about Marx didn't want to support his call to arms, if economic circumstances and social injustices became so bad, as they too often do, that people could want to resort to the use of arms to fight for rights and legitimate liberties. At least he wasn't saying people should do that for committing aggression though; it was rather only for active or energetic defence. Yet, it's always better to try to win without the use of arms. Is that possible though? In dreams? Sure. In reality? It doesn't seem possible.
Everything else he said, or much of it anyway, is rather excellent.
Let's not forget the downside of charity. It is unreliable and can be demeaning. It cannot make up for massive homelessness as we see now on the streets and subways of New York.
People need some assurance of stable opportunity to work and live. I much prefer a society in which charity is not necessary except in extraordinary circumstances.
Joe
Any society in which charity is necessary has already failed.
That must mean that North Korea, where there is ZERO charity is an absolute paradise.
FTP Script
Actually,
One reason why poor people-if i may include myself here- give isn't even brought up here. As far as i'm concerned, its SELF-INTEREST. I give to others who are in the same boat, more or, as it happens, less as myself, and can feel some confidence that i'll receive just what i need from someone or other at the end of the month if & when i run out of $ (i'm on a disability pension). Its something, dare i say it, like 'class solidarity', which though it goes unacknowledged still exists even when unrecognised as it all too often is in N. America where supposedly, class distictions 'no longer exist'. SO yes, this article, despite that lack of acknowledgement is still re-assuring. Despite the amazing con-job we've all had in the english-speaking lands of this continent (where as someone once said "even the homeless population has been duped into thinking of themselves as simply millionaires who have fallen on bad times), it hasn't been completely wiped out!
Republicans and churchgoers are much more generous givers than Democrats and secular people. Why?
I doubt this sort of generosity, as described in the article, exists much in the province of Quebec; or maybe it's just because I live (unfortunately) in the electoral district of the present PM of Quebec, who is a selfish, greedy, ... brat sort of character. Based on what the newspaper here, or else tv news media, reported about the last provincial election for this district, by far most of the residents of the overall municipality voted against this PM and that by far most of the votes for him were form the north section of the city, which is the bourgeois section. The election, which he purportedly won, after his opponent had been far ahead, but while the present PM supposedly won by nearly as much as he had been behind and purportedly only due to 14% of votes placed before election day and which weren't counted until a day or two later, after election day; well, this election smelled of rottenness to me. Someone from the opposition had mentioned that a recount of the votes should be done, but [no] one pushed for this and the present PM got an easy "win" or else appointing. It is a city where the bourgeois and business run "the show"; very much.
But even the poor and a little above poverty don't show anything for significant generosity. To try to be able to have enough money to be able to eat for a whole month instead of two and a half weeks or so, I work five days a way, 3.5 hours a day, cleaning for handicapped and elderly people who are supposed to be unable to afford to pay for the same service at $3 less than min. wage. Tips would be normal for getting this work for free, being free because it's the government that gives me $130 a month more in social assistance for doing this work, which takes an average of 4.5 to 5 hours out of my day five days a week. But doing this since March 23rd, I've received a total of less than $10 in tips, and the people obtaining this service only need to pay $5 every three months or more. Ha ha ha for the poor, unfortunate suckers like myself; but I need to be such a sucker, else food ..., I can count on maybe making it to the 17th of each month, after room rent.
Canadians, Quebecers, Sherbrookois anyway, certainly do seem to be rather cheap, penny-pinching people, and most of the people I do this home cleaning work for can certainly afford a few dollars each day I do this, which is once every two weeks per client. They can afford it, a little tipping, even $1 an hour, but hold on to their pennies like their lives depend on it.
I tell people here that Americans, the avareage Americans, are more generous. Rich Americans are richer than rich Canadians, but average Americans are more generous than the people here. Or at least it seems to be a present reality anyway.
I couldn't imagine exploiting the poorest of society in this manner, but many other people have no issues of conscience doing this. Maybe it's because I'm originally of the U.S., or perhaps that combined with being from family who went through extreme, very third-world kind of poverty at a time when there was no social financial aide at all.
MikeCorbeil, thank you for sharing those truths. I tend to assume no one else on
CD could ever even fathom the homelessness, hunger or poverty I have known. Why should they? Decent hard working people generally don't experience these things. Or am I wrong about that? Ever more so I believe.
As our population grows while the economy contracts and the rich updraft most of what wealth exists people are getting poorer. Fast. The old middle class is becoming the new lower class and this process will continue and conditions worsen until a revolution reverses these dynamics.
America is gonna have the honor of being the 1st industrialized capitalist country to have a Revolution.
Viva. La. Marx.
If things suck too much, move to California and I'll show you how to grow pot legally. One does that plus honest work as you do and a live evolves, of course, it ain't for everybody.
Me, I just grow for myself. But I must be the only one. I tell you Northern California is starting to look like a Marijuana Plantation, the Hell with rows upon rows where poppies grow, I'm into Peace and we grow it.
Luke 10:30-37, the parable of the good samaritan is kinda cool.
People do the right thing for different reasons if they do it at all, fear of punishment for "doing wrong," the lowest form of thinking, because it is the right thing to do-perfect, or because it pleases God.
Hungry people never question the motivation of their benefactors though, they know it is kindness whatever it's wellspring.
Are you kind? For an ounce of rosemary, sage, & time, which famous rock and roll singer made that question famous? Are. you. kind?
The poor often are. But one gd time at a dead show I was getting hungry on LSD, longhairs everywhere selling food and water in the desert, and a yuppie in a motorhome fed me.
Find the beauty where you may.
The article says the following.
QUOTE: "The lowest-income fifth (of the population) always give at more than their capacity," said Virginia Hodgkinson, former vice president for research at Independent Sector, a Washington-based association of major nonprofit agencies. "The next two-fifths give at capacity, and those above that are capable of giving two or three times more than they give."
Reminds me of the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth in the temple or synagogue or whatever the religious structure was called; when he spoke on donations for tithes and a poor woman gave a lot given her poverty, while a wealthy or rich man who was present gave a rather insignificant amount, given his wealth. Jesus certainly had a valid point to make about this.
As I posted on the Web several or more times several years ago when other people bragged about how we've supposedly evolved, much better than our ancestors were, the reality is that humans haven't really changed. We have developed technologies that didn't formerly exist, and we've lost valuable knowledge people once had and which took decades, sometimes centuries, before being discovered and further developed. We haven't really evolved, certainly not enough compared to the improvements we should have been able to achieve by now; and humans, in terms of social character, haven't really changed.
I had read back in the 1990's that the poor or lower income, and perhaps middle income, people were the best tippers at restaurants, too. This has surely remained, constant, also; I assume. It's easy to make such an assumption when we [know] that the wealthy are greedy, cheap, selfish, worshippers of their own navels, ... etcetera.
$9.50 for a day of panhandling? Hmmm. If that's in Washington, DC, then "man" it's little money for an area with plenty of wealth.
A former computer professional in Montreal (Mtl) who ended up out of work and totally bankrupt during his early 40's (if that old) found himself in need of obtaining social financial aide from the provincial government (aka "wel"fare) and the amount is now $560 a month, which barely covers rent for a small apartment in Mtl; if there are any available for this price and there perhaps aren't. He was interviewed in a documentary film for television in Quebec (province) on poverty in Mtl and said that this social assistance money just was not enough to survive, so he panhandled and was lucky to find a good area of the city to do this in, saying he gets around $500 a month, which permitted him to get a small apartment and cover food costs; and maybe a monthly bus pass or a few beers or coffees when going out to get some social atmosphere or .... He didn't say how many hours a day that he needs to panhandle though and I've assumed that he needs to spend maybe even eight or more hours per day, but maybe not.
People can panhandle there and it's legal, or was when the documentary film was made anyway. It was made sometime after 2000.
When I lived in Ottawa, Ontario, it was clearly legal to panhandle there, also. There was a guy (I'd say in his 20's) regularly at one location downtown that I passed by a few or more times a week and he was always panhandling, and did this without asking for the money. He'd just sit and put a hat upside down on the ground in front of him. He'd talk to passersby if they spoke to him, but otherwise didn't speak to people; perhaps to avoid being labelled a nuisance.
It's not legal everywhere in Canada though. F.e., it's not legal in Sherbrooke, Quebec, the electoral district of the present PM of the province (Quebec), who is rich enough. It's against by-laws here, so panhandlers could be fined, if caught and the "law" was applied in nasty fashion.
In places like this and when only on social financial aide, fingers can get a little "itchy" when going to supermarkets ya know. So allowing panhandling, as long as it's done in ways that aren't causing the person to be a real nuisance to others can help to prevent liftings of items at stores, unnecessarily. But there's apparently a certain pompousness in the "atmosphere" of this small city, so they keep panhandling illegal, and I suppose that it's probably due to the bourgeois class or caste here, because I doubt the poor and low, perhaps even middle income people would care about panhandlers; giving or not, but otherwise not being bothered by the presence of a panhandler now and then, here and there, sparsely or barely present at all. After all, it's a small city and the job market is rather pitiful here; fine for the employed, but virtually no employment opportunities for the unemployed.
When it's all people have for ways of trying to get or have some food money, or to survive, then panhandling should be permitted for "crying out loud"!
Giving 99 cents, so $1, out of a $9.50 day, now this is actually generous. A 99 cent McD burger obviously isn't going to do much at all for daily food "allowance", but giving over 10% of a day's earnings is generous enough. If everyone with income did this, then we might see starving Americans and Canadians (and people in other countries, of course) ... no longer starving. Heh, what a great idea.
Time to tell the people that Bubba Clinton who doublecrossed
the working classes with Nafta and the outsourcing of our industrial base to China, is now reaping in Millions of dollars every day from countries that gained from his doublcross.
Who will tell the people?
Most people want to give. The fact that the less well off are closer in real terms to the even less well off makes it easier, in a way, to reach out. What we don't see...
There is a correlation, however, between wealth and the need to preserve it. The sages of the ages have told us this, and no one on this site is sager.
What I see is too many people oversimplifying everything on this site. As if the goal is to encapsulate complex issues into tiny boxes, not for the purpose of maximizing the derived truth but for making one feel good about one's cultist world view.
As much as I disagree with the notions that there are no good and true Democrats or the founding Father's were really super rich megalomaniacs, I have found it increasingly difficult to explain anything that Obama is doing or people like Harry Reid who seems to have sold his soul to the Devil... It's as if they are trying to prove the simpletons right.
Preservation is vital, beyond a doubt, but I don't think it's fair to say that the "rich" are giving as much as they can in all the ways that they can, hence it's understandable that people don't bother bringing up the issue as part of their argument.
Bit of a tangent but "rich" people are just people. They aren't a special type of person. Most wealth, even in the land of the free, is handed from one generation to the next. I think about 85 percent if I'm not mistaken. We need to start realizing that from an ethical, moral and even just basic common sense issue we must have minimum living standards established. Our GDP approaches 50k for every man, woman and child and hence we should at least have the full array of health care and safe housing with a delicious and nutritious diet as the bare minimum for absolutely everyone. No reason it can't be done efficiently and actually increase the nation's net wealth. However, we are run by a pack of vicious, degenerate, psychopathic dogs who are terrorizing us and our friends overseas and stealing as much money from our treasury as they can get their hands on. We need to take back our country before it's all lost to them, which it seems is happening at an ever faster rate as each minute goes by.
JS, in your 1st paragraph you say most on this site seek not truth but to feel good. It is my experience that most people want to impress or depress themselves or those they are communicating with. Which is why I deadbolt my door.
But the level of consciousness, wisdom, shared hopes and disappointments on CD weaves sweet truths.
Your comment infers you may enjoy a web-site where people with actual intellects and enlightened consciousness do seek truth rather than to merely feel good.
What is the name of this web-site JamesStirling?
Where do we find The Real Truth JamesStirling?
JS, having possibly made that point, I'd like to say the last 5 sentences of your post are dead on. And you taught me something important, typical on these CD threads..... I did not have the 50k gdp per head number down at all and that is a vitally powerful piece of data in a land where people are hungry and need health care they cannot access.
I have $21.00 to my name and enough food for about 5 meals. Torn tendons that need simple surgery I will never see. That stat means something to me.
Thank You James, Joe.
Isn't it strange that the rich are comforted more by taking and having more and the poor more by giving and having less? But we equate poverty as an illness and wealth as success.
Something very warped about the conventional "wisdom of the day" that is dictated by the takers, those who control the information highway.
Poor people with a heart! What a target market, if you will.
Beware of scammers taking advantage of these people's caring, flashing pics of starving children etc.
By giving directly you can be sure your money or food donation at least gets to the person in need.
We need more people like this in government. Imagine what they could do with $400 billion?
Joe
Can you imagine a Supreme Court Justice who could be like that?
jclientelle
Hooray for this kind of thinking.
A simply wonderful article.
There are folks with plenty of money that are generous and caring too. But this man's largesse puts us all to shame.
May he come home soon.
Living wealthy = living selfish
Every day people buy material wants while there are so many out there with real life or death material needs. Living this way is selfish.
No way around it.
Viva Marx!
It's actually rather simple:
does anyone think that one becomes rich or well-off or well to do by being generous and giving to others?
Yes.. It's a very simple logic. But sharing what you have to others will reflect good karma right?
Good karma plus 99 cents will buy you a cheeseburger at McDonald's.
My personal experience has been to the contrary.
Bummer! This post belongs up there below the crack about good karma and 99 cents. Don't know what happened, but I didn't say what I appear to have said.
Good karma plus 99 cents and you would be one wealthy individual.
Most folks gotta lot more than that though and straight laugh in your face if you are hungry while they eat. Toss you the wrapper.
But Intant Karma's gonna get them, gonna knock them in the head.
Ray, not one of them can look me in the eyes, never, because I can see into their withered souls and they squirm. My karma's clean, I fed someone hungry this morning. Big deal. It's easy. Do no harm. Do good. Love God.
Good karma plus 99 cents is priceless, and it buys one far more than a cheeseburger Ray, it buys you joy and strength and friendships.
Ray, Peace to you.
I'm not so sure. That there's some supernatural force called karma is nonsense, but I do think there's a practical monkey-see monkey-do sense of karma. Generous acts help make generosity the social norm, and we can benefit from that when in need. There's also the matter of people feeling empathy for people closest to them, like that quote from an unemployed person about people with money not seeing people in need. So people with money might donate to a high-profile arts organization rather than a charity focused on poverty.
And maybe there's a matter of what gets counted. If donations to arts don't get counted (I can't tell from the article if that's the case) then maybe donations to churches shouldn't be counted when they don't actually get used for charitable work. I don't consider money donated to build the new church building to be charity, and I suspect counting it is why religious people come off as more generous.
I donated to Common Dreams. Does that get counted? I think that money does good, even if it doesn't count as "charity".
As Preacher Casey said "Everybody might be just one big soul". To me karma is doing whatever contributes to making it the kind of world you want to live in. You leave a little bit of kindness on the picture. Maybe you will not reap any personal reward, but someone will, one of your soul brothers or sisters.
Joe