[Rick]

A lot of american "charity" has come from taking on the dictators of the world with it's huge military establishment. This has occurred while euros have sat on their asses fo 60 years, criticizing from the sidelines, and letting their military establishments shrink to almost nothing, leaving them with a lot of money to play with.

[Thunderhawk]

Toppling regimes and installing new ones isnt always an act of charity for the people whose government is being toppled.

[I]

A lot of american "charity" has come from taking on the dictators of the world with it's huge military establishment.

Maintaining US hegemony is charitable? I love how you fellows 'think'

We could get more specific. For example, does any one NATO member overspend? The American researcher Sandler wasnt too positive about that stance: "there continues to be a concordance between benefits received and defense burdens borne by the allies. Moreover, there is no evidence yet of disproportionate burdens being shouldered by the large allies".

[Piano Red]

Where's the inconsistency? I've had a quick glance through and I only see a different base year. Has that "2% overseas" figure significantly increased? Are you going to rely on good ole Gates to suggest some radical change?

"Gaudiani said Americans give twice as much as the next most charitable country, according to a November 2006 comparison done by the Charities Aid Foundation. In philanthropic giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, the U.S. ranked first at 1.7 percent. No. 2 Britain gave 0.73 percent, while France, with a 0.14 percent rate, trailed such countries as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany."

You'd expect, ceteris paribus, more charity when the tax system is structured to encourage it. Is that a good thing?

No, it's more of an ideological difference. Americans don't need to be persuaded to give to charities as a result of taxes. They give it freely and of their own accord, thus taking the burden off their government having to babysit giving out aid in their name. Hence the usual mis-representation regarding aid given directly via governments.

The US government gave more aid to them tsunami victims (excluding the military aid) than the american public and charity institutions combined.

Source.

We could get more specific. For example, does any one NATO member overspend?

And what is the benchmark used to determine whether they're overspending?

[I]

"Gaudiani said Americans give twice as much as the next most charitable country, according to a November 2006 comparison done by the Charities Aid Foundation. In philanthropic giving as a percentage of gross domestic product, the U.S. ranked first at 1.7 percent. No. 2 Britain gave 0.73 percent, while France, with a 0.14 percent rate, trailed such countries as South Africa, Singapore, Turkey and Germany."

It would have been better if you had tried to answer the question I asked. Has the "2% overseas" figure significantly increased? For international comparisons of internal charity we'd have to control for numerous factors: religious fever, income distribution, strength of the welfare state, tax systems etc etc. External charity provides us with a much clearly understanding of generosity.

No, it's more of an ideological difference. Americans don't need to be persuaded to give to charities as a result of taxes. They give it freely and of their own accord

There is absolutely no appreciation of economic analysis in your comments. You've simply chosen to go with the generosity myth.

Its rather important that there is debate in the use of charity versus enforced redistribution (via progressive taxation). I've already indicated one of the important issues: whether charity is too regressive. However, its certainly more than that. We also have considerations of control over fiscal policy. We also have much more specific understanding, which goes hand in hand with the optimal taxation literature. Here's an example:

European economies are characterized by unionized labor markets and governmental redistribution of income. This paper studies a model where those two features are combined with the possibility for individuals to make charitable contributions to the poor. The model exhibits equilibrium unemployment that increases with the degree of altruism. It is shown that a more progressive income tax can both reduce the unemployment rate and improve the public budget

[Maas]

I googled with "Gaudiani Charities Aid Foundation"
hits: 4

The US government gave more aid to them tsunami victims (excluding the military aid) than the american public and charity institutions combined.

Source.

actually, I found something superior:

Funds pledged by NGOs and public (per capita) (Latest available) by country per capita:
USA nr 18
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/dis_t ... per-capita

The USA isn't even the nr 1 in total amount, Germany is (it's somewhere on that site as well. If you favour the US, than it aint pritty)

[Noelnada]

"I encourage all Europeans to visit the US, and if you like what you see and have your papers in order, to stay. It certainly doesn't seem so evil a country when you experience it for yourself."

By Jesus Christ , never go to the land of the evil neo-cons my fellow europeans , they will corrupt u with empty promess of unending flow of dirty money.
And u will never see the light of the social security for all again.
No but i been in the U.S. , and as far as i know , the only thing interesting is that food and goods are cheaper.
But since America has declared war to the world in 2001 , i won't spend a single euro on the american soil .
If i wanna see america , i go to the macdonalds , cheaper

[Aught Six]

Yes, people like you should stay out. Everyone else is still invited to the party.

[Shade2]

By Jesus Christ , never go to the land of the evil neo-cons my fellow europeans ,

Go away from me, I prefer Americans to such "europeans" as you
-EU citizen.
Go USA!.