We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
President Obama, are you listening? Or, would you rather raise taxes and regulatory costs on smaller businesses?
The Chronicle of Philanthropy reports a study by the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund and Ernst & Young that, not only do entrepreneurs create more jobs, entrepreneurs give more to charity than large, established companies.
Entrepreneurs give twice as much of their profits to charity as more-established companies, according to new research released today by the Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund and Ernst & Young.
Entrepreneurs, the study found, allocate a median of 3 percent of their corporate profits to charity. That is more than double the median 1.2 percent of profits found in The Chronicle’s latest corporate-giving survey of the nation’s largest companies.
Not only that, but "Nearly 70 percent said they started supporting charities while building their business, before it was successful."
AND they hire local teens for parttime jobs, giving them the opportunity to learn about running a business. AND they hire parents who need flexible work schedules, often supplying daycare or other support for families. AND they give to their neighborhoods in ways that aren't "deductible" on their taxes. I live in a community of small business entrepreneurs -- don't we all -- that would be a wasteland without them.
Charity for Augustine meant thinking the best of people rather than the worst (a sub-meaning the word still carries); a habit that was good for the soul.
It came to mean money sometime after that, in an early version of a word-shift spin because it paid off for somebody.
Charity in large amounts is not in itself bad, but is probably a misallocation of capital unless there's a careful pick-and-choose every year; or is frankly part of the PR department and pays off in the good-will (always read: "air") balance sheet item.
As far as the left is concerned, that's not a feature, that's a bug.
I was discussing the concept with a leftist that it is preferable for the government to lower taxes and let private funding support charities. Their rejoinder is that a powerful central government has the resources to get greater awareness of all the different causes and charities that exist and is thus better able to decide which ones are most deserving and should be funded.