Volunteering?

[Holdfast]

This may be a UK thing. A lot more US folks seem to get involved in volunteering.

This is true. The USA donates twice as much money to charity as a percentage of GDP as the UK does. While charitable donations aren't (necessarily) the same as volunteering time, it does indicate a gaping cultural chasm vis a vis giving.

The difference wasn't always so marked; the UK used to have a much stronger philanthropic tradition.

But the reasons of the change are pretty obvious to me:

1) the UK has developed a psychological dependency on the concept of the welfare state over the past 50+ years, which naturally takes the philanthropic onus away from individual responsibility and transfers it to the state.
2) the tax system in this country has historically been nowhere near as generous regarding charitable giving as it is in the USA. It's now much more similar, but this is a very recent change. Gift Aid was only introduced in 1990, and the ability to count assets rather than cash as valid donations for attracting that tax relief was only added a few years ago.

The first issue narrows the base of donors, and the second has limited large donations from the richest decile. And while the tax system is now much less of an issue, because it's only changed recently, the average person - including the average wealthy person - doesn't realise just how tax-efficient giving can be these days and so how much more affordable it is to donate both cash and assets to charities. This should change over time, though.

The first issue remains a deeper problem. For instance, I don't volunteer or even donate (beyond a couple of charities that I have a personal connection to) because I feel that I already pay too much in tax to support a too-broad welfare state.

This, without getting overly political, is why Cameron's Big Society concept is an excellent idea doomed to short/medium-term political difficulty as a result of the transient gaps in service provision that will almost inevitably arise.

For it to really take off, the state has to do less, so people feel obligated to do more. But there will be a time lag between the state doing less and people actually doing more, during which state service provision will contract without non-profit/voluntary provision expanding enough to compensate. In the longer term, if the state squeeze remains, one hopes a broader cultural shift will be effected whereby donations will rise as people like myself note a genuine change and shift in balance of responsibility from state to individuals. But this is clearly a politically difficult strategy to follow in the short/medium-term. While it gets a lot of comic stick poked at it for being woolly, in reality it's a remarkably brave strategy for a political party to follow, primarily because it's so guaranteed to be unpopular in the near term. Whether it proves to be "brave" only in the Humphrey Appleby sense of the word, time will tell.

 

[cultcross]

^ I'm not sure I could disagree with more in a single post that doesn't mention Enterprise.

cultcross, volunteer, public sector employee, and taxpayer.

 

[Mary Ann]

^You make some interesting points, Holdfast. I worked in a very deprived area and while there were plenty of good people trying to make the best of things there was an element of welfare dependency and a victim mentality which stopped some people from helping themselves. It's frustrating.

I just started volunteering at a Citizens Advice Bureau, partly because I've almost always done something voluntary since my late teens and also for selfish reasons as I'm studying law and this will look good on my resume. I don't have a job due to my studies so this helps to get me out of the house as well (I'm doing home-study through the Open University). My longest voluntary stint was as a Rainbow Guides Leader for almost 10 years, and I've volunteered with an animal charity (fostering), the Red Cross, a battered women's shelter, and several other places. My mother was heavily into volunteering, which is where I get it from.

 

[Holdfast]

^ I'm not sure I could disagree with more in a single post that doesn't mention Enterprise.

Well, most of it is just personal opinion, of course.

But the first line, comparing charitable giving as a percentage of GDP between the USA and the UK is not opinion, however. It is about twice as much in the States as it is here. I suppose it might be considered off-topic, since charitable giving isn't the same as volunteering time, but if you did think it on-topic, I'd be interested in what you thought were the reasons for that difference?

 

[Jadzia]

I'd like to offer an idea.

Charitable aid to third world countries has in the past had the effect of steering those countries towards western values, in a kind of territory scoring game vs the communist states who may be trying to expand their influence in the same way.

You can get some insight into that strategic perspective of the world from the Seven Worlds Theory.

Could the greater degree of charitableness in the USA be a cultural side effect of these political games?

 

[cultcross]

^ I'm not sure I could disagree with more in a single post that doesn't mention Enterprise.

Well, most of it is just personal opinion, of course.

But the first line, comparing charitable giving as a percentage of GDP between the USA and the UK is not opinion, however. It is about twice as much in the States as it is here. I suppose it might be considered off-topic, since charitable giving isn't the same as volunteering time, but if you did think it on-topic, I'd be interested in what you thought were the reasons for that difference?

I'm sure that's the case. However I don't really buy the explanation that it's because of our horrible tax burden to fund the welfare state though. According to the ombudsman of factual accuracy that is Wikipedia, our per capita 'after tax' income is only about 3% less of our gross per capita income than the US. You may have the impression of being very heavily taxed, but it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

But where I really fell out with your post was the second half, beginning with "I don't volunteer or even donate because I feel that I already pay too much in tax to support a too-broad welfare state." and the idea that Cameron's 'Big Society' idea is brave or noble, instead of just an excuse to implement conservative social policies that leave the vulnerable with no support.

I just can't get on board with your political viewpoint on the welfare state. There is little about Britain of which I am more proud than the ideal that everyone deserves a basic quality of life. The existence of good public services doesn't make me less likely to volunteer, quite the opposite. I volunteer to support their work as best I can. Even in the best of times, the voluntary sector, particularly in care, was essential.
You don't improve matters by slashing the state services and expecting people, many of whom are now facing pay freezes and redundancy themselves, to step up even more. In short, volunteering is achieved by the carrot, not the stick.

 

[Holdfast]

I'm sure that's the case. However I don't really buy the explanation that it's because of our horrible tax burden to fund the welfare state though.

Again, if so, what is the reason? Regardless of our different opinion on the politics is, it seems there must be a reason for the difference, given the overall similarities between the UK and the USA in many other respects. Jadzia postulates a cultural legacy; would you agree with her suggestion, or is there another issue at play?

According to the ombudsman of factual accuracy that is Wikipedia, our per capita 'after tax' income is only about 3% less of our gross per capita income than the US. You may have the impression of being very heavily taxed, but it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

3% is really quite a large difference. But even putting that to one side, I would suggest that average tax rates aren't a major issue when it comes to increasing donations, marginal rates are. I would bet that it's the richest decile that make the most difference to the total donated to charity in the States compared to here because they have the most potential discretionary income. And the absolute amount of that discretionary income is very dependent on the marginal tax rate they're hit by.

For instance, I get tax relief on the donations I make to the two charities I mentioned that I feel a personal connection to; I actively take that relief into account when deciding how much I feel able to donate. Business charitable giving pays even more attention to these bottom line effects.

On the more general point you make, that:

volunteering is achieved by the carrot, not the stick.

This may be true for you, as you say, I won't argue that, as I don't know you.

More generally however, I'm sure most other people like to think of themselves as nice, wholesome, caring individuals who enjoy freely giving of themselves to others for the greater good of society.

I reserve the right to disagree with their assessment of themselves. This impacts directly on my perception of whether they're less or more likely to give to charity if the state isn't doing a lot already.

By the way, I do agree with the principle of a basic safety net welfare state to provide a certain quality of life for all citizens. I think our welfare state goes way beyond that point, however. That really is a matter for a different thread though, and will derail this thread if we discuss it further, so on that aspect we're probably going have to agree to disagree.

 

[AdAstra]

I used to be a scout leader at a group for kids with a mental disability.

I stopped doing that a few years ago, but now I go on summer holidays (1 week per year) with adults with a mental disability.

Other than that, I don't really do any charitable stuff. Other than being nice.

 

[mtblillie]

I used to be a volunteer for the Civil Air Patrol (US Air Force Auxiliary), I started out as a cadet in the leadership program, and then when I became an adult member I was an instructor for the cadets.

I wish I had done CAP when I was younger. It would have been a much cheaper way to learn to fly....

Yes and no, it is actually rather difficult to get even half way to a pilots liscence through CAP, it merely gives you the basics if you aren't already a pilot, and puts your skills to use if you are a pilot.

There are pilot training programs in CAP, but they are usually limited and tend to be expensive and rather difficult to get in to.

Unfortunately, at least in my experience, the "flying" that CAP brochures promise is the orientation flights, which are to cool and give you the experience of flying, but they don't really do much to help you become a pilot (other than more motivation from the experience!)

 

[Kirby]

I'm the Committee Chair and Finance guy for my son's Cub Scout Pack.