The below may sound harsh but I hope it is understood from taking a more high level view. I laude your effort and altruism but to make it effective maybe another tithe is not the right way.
So I’d like to put the tithe somewhat into perspective. Originally the tithe was the income tax.
My reading is that at all times the collected tithe (together with other taxes) was used partly for charity, largely for functioning of society (infrastructure, defense, education, …) and partly for presentation/status as well as luxury of the rulers.
Basically the same with our modern taxes. And yes: There were different additional kinds of taxes at different times but until recently few income taxes.
Now I asume that philantrophy has existed at all times and some people have given more voluntarily. And social pressure has surely worked its way too—especially when there is no fixed amount but a (partly) publicly visible process. But I doubt people called additional donations ‘tithe’ too. So strictly the usage of tithe is semantically wrong and to me it looks a bit like justifying extra donations as historically normal which it isn’t. Understandably so given the cause.
Our modern taxes are significantly higher than historical income taxes. Currently e.g. < 20% for normal incomes in U.S. and < 30% in Germany (maybe higher income taxes are part of the explanation why Germans donate less? In total they apparently contribute more).
So why do we have to add an individual charity component and ‘manage’ it outside and in addition to the existing structures (government, tax) for this purpose? To me it looks as if we have given up on government to deal with charity. Wouldn’t changes to govenrment and taxation be a better service for society?
Actually there are kinds of charity that cause zero to net negative effects via the reduction of social systems. An example are food banks which take responsibility away from the social system thus allowing liberal policy to save in that area.
I fear that adding charity just skews the existing systems and adds an additional element the effects of which nobody sufficiently understands. Each new system element in a complex system tends to bring more problems than it solves.
Your argument seems to be roughly equivalent to this: “The term ‘tithe’ was originally applied to something more like tax than like charity. We pay quite a lot of tax. Some forms of charitable activity turn out to be harmful. Therefore it is not a good idea to give 10% of your income to charitable causes.” But that last bit (which is, of course, the point) seems like a total non sequitur.
I see only two things in what you’ve written that come anywhere near arguing for the final inference. I don’t think they’re good arguments.
“Wouldn’t changes to government and taxation be a better service for society?” (My answer: They might be a very good thing, but I don’t see how they funge against donation to charities.)
“I fear that adding charity juts skews the existing systems and adds an additional element the effects of which nobody sufficiently understands.” (This seems like a universal Argument Against Any Institution. Why is it any more reason to distrust charity than to distrust medical insurance, or banks, or marriage, or armies, or universities?)
Yes. I agree that these are separate points and one does not follow from the other. The are related though. Initially I cosidered writing them separately but writing led to one single piece. I don’t see clearly how to split it but I agree that it probably shouldn’t have been mixed.
Your first point that charities do exist and are kind of orthogonal (and not a new invention) is valid. But I don’t see it as the most efficient way to do things.
Your second point misses as I didn’t meant to apply it against existing structures but against new ones. But then charity isn’t new really. Readding a tithe is.
I’m thinking more of the Christian tithe from a couple centuries ago than the Jewish tithe of a couple millennia ago. Socially expected, for the benefit of a charitable non-governmental organization(excepting the Papal States), used in principle for good works(albeit, with a much different definition of “good” than a modern effective altruist would use).
I’m not referring to extra donations. I’m referring to donations in general. I don’t count taxes as donations, because they’re pretty different creatures(voluntary vs mandatory, choice of target vs not, possibly effective vs government bureaucracy...).
Government does keep a basic safety net in place, albeit not efficiently or well. And yes, I most certainly have given up on improving it to any real extent. Government is a poor way of doing anything, which is why it should always be a backup plan. Anyone who worries about crowding out the government is simply looking at the world backwards.
Our modern taxes are significantly higher than historical income taxes. Currently e.g. < 20% for normal incomes in U.S. and < 30% in Germany (maybe higher income taxes are part of the explanation why Germans donate less? In total they apparently contribute more).
That’s a common explanation. Another is that the US has a culture of giving to churches; Germany for its part has a church tax, which won’t show up as charitable giving either.
The below may sound harsh but I hope it is understood from taking a more high level view. I laude your effort and altruism but to make it effective maybe another tithe is not the right way.
So I’d like to put the tithe somewhat into perspective. Originally the tithe was the income tax. My reading is that at all times the collected tithe (together with other taxes) was used partly for charity, largely for functioning of society (infrastructure, defense, education, …) and partly for presentation/status as well as luxury of the rulers.
Basically the same with our modern taxes. And yes: There were different additional kinds of taxes at different times but until recently few income taxes.
Now I asume that philantrophy has existed at all times and some people have given more voluntarily. And social pressure has surely worked its way too—especially when there is no fixed amount but a (partly) publicly visible process. But I doubt people called additional donations ‘tithe’ too. So strictly the usage of tithe is semantically wrong and to me it looks a bit like justifying extra donations as historically normal which it isn’t. Understandably so given the cause.
Our modern taxes are significantly higher than historical income taxes. Currently e.g. < 20% for normal incomes in U.S. and < 30% in Germany (maybe higher income taxes are part of the explanation why Germans donate less? In total they apparently contribute more).
So why do we have to add an individual charity component and ‘manage’ it outside and in addition to the existing structures (government, tax) for this purpose? To me it looks as if we have given up on government to deal with charity. Wouldn’t changes to govenrment and taxation be a better service for society?
Actually there are kinds of charity that cause zero to net negative effects via the reduction of social systems. An example are food banks which take responsibility away from the social system thus allowing liberal policy to save in that area.
See e.g. Tafeln und der Abbau des Sozialstaates (pg 144).
I fear that adding charity just skews the existing systems and adds an additional element the effects of which nobody sufficiently understands. Each new system element in a complex system tends to bring more problems than it solves.
Your argument seems to be roughly equivalent to this: “The term ‘tithe’ was originally applied to something more like tax than like charity. We pay quite a lot of tax. Some forms of charitable activity turn out to be harmful. Therefore it is not a good idea to give 10% of your income to charitable causes.” But that last bit (which is, of course, the point) seems like a total non sequitur.
I see only two things in what you’ve written that come anywhere near arguing for the final inference. I don’t think they’re good arguments.
“Wouldn’t changes to government and taxation be a better service for society?” (My answer: They might be a very good thing, but I don’t see how they funge against donation to charities.)
“I fear that adding charity juts skews the existing systems and adds an additional element the effects of which nobody sufficiently understands.” (This seems like a universal Argument Against Any Institution. Why is it any more reason to distrust charity than to distrust medical insurance, or banks, or marriage, or armies, or universities?)
Yes. I agree that these are separate points and one does not follow from the other. The are related though. Initially I cosidered writing them separately but writing led to one single piece. I don’t see clearly how to split it but I agree that it probably shouldn’t have been mixed.
Your first point that charities do exist and are kind of orthogonal (and not a new invention) is valid. But I don’t see it as the most efficient way to do things.
Your second point misses as I didn’t meant to apply it against existing structures but against new ones. But then charity isn’t new really. Readding a tithe is.
Nice summary by the way. Thank you.
I’m thinking more of the Christian tithe from a couple centuries ago than the Jewish tithe of a couple millennia ago. Socially expected, for the benefit of a charitable non-governmental organization(excepting the Papal States), used in principle for good works(albeit, with a much different definition of “good” than a modern effective altruist would use).
I’m not referring to extra donations. I’m referring to donations in general. I don’t count taxes as donations, because they’re pretty different creatures(voluntary vs mandatory, choice of target vs not, possibly effective vs government bureaucracy...).
Government does keep a basic safety net in place, albeit not efficiently or well. And yes, I most certainly have given up on improving it to any real extent. Government is a poor way of doing anything, which is why it should always be a backup plan. Anyone who worries about crowding out the government is simply looking at the world backwards.
That’s a common explanation. Another is that the US has a culture of giving to churches; Germany for its part has a church tax, which won’t show up as charitable giving either.