Don

You raise some interesting points, but I think there may be other factors at play. It is not only Australia that lacks a culture of philanthropy compared to the USA, but also much of Europe and, most relevantly, the UK. Our comparative stinginess reflects an ideological inheritance from the mother country, not a different pattern of economic development.

In particular, I think philanthropy is necessary and moderating counterpoint to the USA’s individualistic culture and comparatively under-developed state sector. In social democracies we expect the state to care for the disadvantaged and provide cultural public goods like museums and art galleries. We also expect the rich to contribute disproportionately to these activities, but they do so through comparatively high and more steeply progressive taxation. In the USA the rich person’s obligation to the community is expressed as a personal and voluntary duty, and far less through state-mandated redistribution, hence its traditions of philanthropy.

In general, across rich countries there is an inverse relationship between taxation as a percentage of GDP and philanthropy.

Which system is best depends on your ideological predispositions, I suppose. State-mandated redistribution seems to deliver more resources to the disadvantaged and public uses, but I wonder if something is lost when responsibility for others is a legal inevitability rather than a moral duty.

This is mainly an issue for the rich. The percentage of Australians who give money to charity is amongst the highest in the world, but the percentage of GDP donated is smaller, in part I guess because we do not have as many very large donations by the rich.

The rich are entitled to do whatever they want (legally) with their money as are the rest of us. The idea, which is generally fostered by the Left, that the rich should be forced to part with their money is generated more by jealousy than public benefit and based on the false idea that the money doesn't belong to them. Yet, as we have seen,its the corrupt Union officials and dodgy Labor Party ministers who are most prone to misappropriate public funds.

Rich Australians will become more philanthropic when people stop being jealous of the wealthy, despise them less and admire their achievements like they do in the US and not see them as possessing stolen goods.

What a nonsense this article is!

Don is right about one thing. The U.S. keeps on giving! For example, it loves occupation and plundering. No pirates have ever done more.

It gives tonnes of depleted uranium to countries like Iraq and Afghanistan so they can be faced with the horrors of deformed births for ever.

It gives copious amounts of money to dictators whose interests correspond to its own. It spares no expense to spy on the world. It engages in rendition and torture with real enthusiasm and implies to recalcitrant nations if they don't toe the line they'll face nuclear oblivion. It has more oligarchs than most other countries combined and they have more loot than the other 99% of American citizens. It has killed millions since it was beaten in Vietnam and destroyed whole countries. It is currently engaged in trying to achieve gloabal domination...

Anyone who holds up the U.S. as a positive influence in the world is clearly deranged.

I wonder if the US has, or did have, Death Duties, which are certainly a dampener on philanthropy in the waning stages of life. Thank heavens they no longer apply in Oz. I also wonder if they still apply in the UK?

I have the impression that the US offers substantial tax benefits for charitable or public donations - such as donations of art to public galleries - and whereby a tax deduction at 'market value' may be gained for such donations, rather than being based on original purchase cost - and with the same applying to donations of equities/shares, whereby one would conceivably avoid the equivalent of our Capital Gains Tax, as well as gaining a full deduction based on current market value?
So, it appears there may be a tax-minimization component to some US philanthropy? (But then, maybe similar facilities apply in Oz?)

I also wonder if some of the US philanthropy is not somewhat paradoxical, in that some extraordinary wealth has been obtained as spoils of war - even via participation in Iraqi 'reconstruction', and via investment in 'defence' industries and such; and otherwise through neo- or quasi-colonial acquisition.
Hence, some such philanthropy tends to smack of 'nationalism', whereby the spoils from international and multinational endeavours are at least in part redistributed 'at home', for purpose of bolstering the national US ego, charisma and image as 'the' global presence and power.

Being a relative 'fledgling', and a relative 'runt', in Oz we tend to do things for the 'small picture', for the local good - such as volunteering, as has been mentioned, and in direct support of the likes of the 'Salvos', Vinnies and Care-flight - and of course we have rather few 'mega-wealthy' individuals.
(And even Rupert took his ball and ran to 'greener' pastures.)

We may not have quite grown into our boots as yet, but I wouldn't swap, not for quids.
(Whenever we went (or go) to war it was/is in philanthropy and sacrifice - and never with thoughts of making a profit.
And I don't consider us 'mugs' for this approach.)

Anyone who holds up the U.S. as a positive influence in the world is clearly deranged.
David G,
Even more deranged are the bashers of the USA. They should proof that they could survive a single day without anything to do with the US & see how they'd manage. Maggots can't feed once the carcass is gone so, what would you do to get by ?

Individual, your comment is so infantile and silly that it deserves no reply.

Sadly, of course, there are many Australians who..., I was going to say 'think like you' but of course you don't think, you just follow the herd who, like you, are caught in a 1945 time warp!

Bbbbbbbbbaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

It’s interesting that Mr Aitkin’s article provokes commentary from nefarious conspiracy theorists to wealth bashing which sidetracks discussion of his premise.

America’s industrial development was created phases of enormous wealth generation a situation that relatively young Australia has not fully experienced.

Second, US wealth generation encompasses a wider diversity of industries, rail transportation, chemicals, mining, automobiles, steel and oil. For a variety of reasons Australia has not grown such a philanthropic base from equivalent national development, notwithstanding the enormous personal wealth generated to only second generation Australian mining families.

Third, the size of the US philanthropic market comprises ‘old money’ primarily located in US eastern states which predicates geographically selective donation patterns. As Mr Aitkin has alluded there exists a correlation with Victoria’s ‘old money’ establishments that are significant benefactors to Australian philanthropic causes although the donor pool cannot compare with the US.

Fourth, America operates highly professional fund raising campaigns and exhaustive donor research programs which are also aided by certain attractive tax offsets for donors and testators. People may snarl at the rich giving away their money but such donations do benefit not for profit or charitable recipients.

Fifth, millions of Americans are imbued with a strong moral imperative that they should support organisations and causes which themselves have contributed to their own values or financial well being. People may debunk such patronage as trivial moralising but it runs deep in the American psyche. Visit America and see how many houses fly the US flag. How many Australian flags did you pass on your way to work today? Admire it or hate it as mere nationalistic narrowness but most Americans possess greater national pride in their country than Australians..

What Australia lacks philanthropically is a deeper sense of responsibility that our wealth – both individual and national - is often derived from the effort and generosity of forebears and that that imperative of giving should continue.

Australia can never match the US philanthropic market. Our challenge is to develop an improved per capita basis of giving, a process that many leading Australian universities are well advanced to achieve

I appreciate the comments, which were thoughtful, and contributed to my increased knowledge.

If I were writing again I would stress the importance of voluntarism here, but note at the same time that Americans whom I knew when I lived and worked in the USA often had a sense of moral duty to do things in and for their town which I have not found so evident in Australia. For Australians, too often, what is needed to be done should be fixed by 'they', or 'aorta' — meaning those responsible. (As in 'Aorta do something about those potholes.') The response I remember from the US was 'What are WE going to do about this?'

I agree completely Don.

I also noticed that there was a lot more 'charity' type support for their poor people, and that was because there was a lot less support and services from their government.

That being said, I was surprised they had nothing like our State Emergency Service volunteers. The Americans I knew thought that that would be a great idea. It would certainly explain why you generally wouldn't see a version of Brisbane's Mud Army for instance. For a start, many of them would think that they would get mugged or robbed if they allowed virtual strangers in to clean their houses.

However there were many more soup kitchens and free food giveaways, usually church run affairs, than I ever saw here. And that was in the good times, those churches must have been busy the last few years...

Bbbbbbbbbaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
David G,
Wow, you really shot me down with so much intellect ! No need to hurry but it would be great to get a sensible contradiction one day.

Neither this article nor the comments take account of differing approaches of the US and Australia. Philanthropy in the US arose out of low taxes and the view that Governments could or should not be responsible for reallocation of individuals - that there was an expectation that individuals would do a better job of direct intervention in problems. Australia on the other hand has a culture of expecting Government intervention - eg universal health, universal quality education, social welfare, and financial support to access university - and pays taxes accordingly.