![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
May. 10th, 2006 08:38 amhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4756363.stm
The above article is on philanthropy in the U.S. While I love the article for what it is, the underlying theme that a group of people can "redistribute wealth" voluntarily is the key dividing line between the political thought on opposing sides of the Atlantic. Individuals of this country hold the wealth (well, the govt let's us have about 40% of our wealth) and each decide how to spend it. Of course (thinks the Continental), those people will horde their money and won't share. Yet, despite the worst belief in human nature, we tend to be more generous. The accomplishment of good does not require governmental oversight.
I hope this level of philanthropy continues or escalates because it is a given that the govt will assume all wealth distribution we allow.
The above article is on philanthropy in the U.S. While I love the article for what it is, the underlying theme that a group of people can "redistribute wealth" voluntarily is the key dividing line between the political thought on opposing sides of the Atlantic. Individuals of this country hold the wealth (well, the govt let's us have about 40% of our wealth) and each decide how to spend it. Of course (thinks the Continental), those people will horde their money and won't share. Yet, despite the worst belief in human nature, we tend to be more generous. The accomplishment of good does not require governmental oversight.
I hope this level of philanthropy continues or escalates because it is a given that the govt will assume all wealth distribution we allow.
