Who are the nation's 'cheapstates'? Try the blue ones.

[Boosterman]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1222/p15s01-ussc.html?ref=aol

Is this correct? How odd.

My apologies for the incorrect title. I actually thought the headline was somewhat offensive.

[bear425]

1. You need to change your headline to the one on the article. n/t

[NV Whino]

2. Call me cynical, but I call it a tax write-off n/t

[MercutioATC]

3. Looks about right to me. Evangelicals are the reason.

A few million tithing 10% of their gross income makes quite a difference.

[mzmolly]

4. That's because the Red States are so mismanaged by their RED Governors

that charity is necessary to feed/cloth the masses. ;)

[orpupilofnature57]

5. Documented maybe, they don't do shit unless they get,a tax break

or peer praise.

[TahitiNut]

6. There's a difference between charity and evangelism.

It seems to be a difference lost upon some.

[HuckleB]

38. Exactly. Let's look at where the money actually goes.

Take away religion as a "charity" and who gives more?

[catnhatnh]

40. I'm bettin Connecticut....

"Tithes" more to Mississippi than Mississippi "tithes" to poor people as opposed to retailers of salvation...

[Mandate My Ass]

7. Not odd at all. It's been my experience that the needy give to the needy

Nowhere in that article does it say republicans give more than dems.

Besides, it's an opinion piece not a hard news story.

[JerseygirlCT]

28. This is the other part of it:

and the far more shameful part. Yes, poor people are far more generous as a percent of their income than the wealthy.

The other part is that a great deal of that generosity goes toward churches.

That's why you'll often find Utah at the top of the list -- the LDS get huge amounts from their members.

[Lucille]

8. The answer is right there in the article

I believe giving to the Rev. Jerry Jim Bob and the Tabernacle Church of Holy Sanctuary and Snake Handling is considered "charity."

Or, in the words of the article:

Actually, it may have more to do with culture, especially religious habits.

"The reason low-income states give a lot is religion," said George McCully, president of Massachusetts-based Catalogue for Philanthropy, whose index uses 2002 IRS tax return data to compare each state's average itemized charitable deduction with its average adjusted gross income.

"They are tithing, evangelical Protestants, and they are giving in proportion to their income," he says. "Up here , religion doesn't help our giving. I wouldn't say it hurts, but it doesn't help, either."

[Anakin Skywalker]

15. Thanks for the Laugh.

Was needing some perk-me-up, then I ran into your quotes.

[jadedcherub]

9. Do Blue-Staters tax dollars get figured into that charity? Heh.

Also it would seem that "rich states" are going to have a significantly higher amount that would need to be raised, probably to the point of being unreasonable (I don't have numbers to look at though.)

I'm sure California raises a pretty penny in total charities, but the amount they would need to raise to compete with Mississippi would probably be insane. And besides, Mississippi is already getting California's money! ;)

.jc.

[daleo]

10. Do you get a tax write-off for tithing to your own church?

I have never heard a direct answer on this one. Given that a certain portion of church charity is returned to church congregants (down on their luck, subsidies for church schooling, etc.) tithing would not exactly be lacking in self-interest.

[crispini]

19. Yep, churches are non-profit entities

and as such, contributions to them are tax deductible.

[Igel]

31. But unless you itemize--and that takes a bit of $ to make

worthwhile--there's no tax deduction. I've known many people that tithed and weren't able to deduct it.

The non-itemized tax deduction for charitable donations was phased out in the early 80s, and donations plummeted for a while.

[crispini]

36. Yeah, but most people who own a house, itemize.

Mortgage, ya know.

[JerseygirlCT]

27. As far as I know, yes, it's tax deductible

and I agree with you -- so much of it seems more like "membership dues" than "charity".

But that is, in large part, why red states are more generous.

[purduejake]

11. Yea, but blue states pay for the infrastructure of the Red states.

They pay more money than they get unlike most of the Red states. Consider that a gift.

However, if you have money, you should use some of it to help others out!

[0007]

12. Boosterman, I always say support your strength with your heart

and the stars will shine brightly.

[Boosterman]

13. Reach for the stars and

maybe you will at least get a low hanging apple for your efforts? (yeah mangled that quote)

Just found the article interesting. Didnt realize it might be considered an opinion piece. I was more interested in the statistics.

[Mandate My Ass]

18. Not "considered" an opinion piece - it is.

Articles in the "society and culture" section written by a correspondent (stringer) of any minimally respected newpaper, without significant analysis, comparison of sources and context

IS

an opinion piece.

[Boosterman]

20. Hmm

I apologize then. I wasnt aware that CSM was a minimally respected newspaper. I see other posts from news organizations that are minimally respected all the time. Once again my apologies.

[Mandate My Ass]

23. You're forgiven

after all your motives were obviously of the purest. ;-)

[MrMonk]

14. The Index is based on a questionable analysis

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2004

The index value is generated by comparing two rank-ordered lists.

The first list is average income, calculated over the entire population of the state. The second list is the average of charitable giving, calculated over the IRS Form A's filed from the state. A state's index value is generated by subtracting the state's rank in the second list from the state's rank in the first list. Does this method have any statistical validity at all? I note that, within the website, the index is used as a marketing tool to encourage lower-ranked states to contribute more.

Also, the article cites a number of problems with the method used to determine a state's rank on the second list.

[nofurylike]

16. we share and give, whether tax-deductible (documented) or not.

they give to boy scouts, and other church/united way/salvation army... programs that benefit selectively (prejudicedly), that benefit them and 'their own kind.'

it's the way they give to themselves and their own, versus to taxes that provide benefit for all, equitably.

is the foundation gimmick. long time players.


peace!

[Logansquare]

17. Church tithing--note their methodology doesn't actually rank

types of charities, just average deduction. In a state with low average income, only a small percentage of wealthy people may actually give to charities and deduct it, but the disparity will be greater because of the nature of the contributors and the relative poverty of the state. I call bullshit on this article.

[Igel]

35. I haven't reasoned it all the way through,

but I think that the methodology isn't too bad, *if* you assume a random distribution of incomes *and* there's nothing skewing the curves. Given those assumptions, the average income and the average deductible donations should increase in lockstep. But I can't evaluate the assumptions' validity. I assume the researchers would have considered this--if you don't know your assumptions and can't defend them, you don't have any business venturing into statistics.

In states with very large, poor rural populations and wealthier urban centers, it won't work. Nor will it work if a significant portion of high-earners ("old money") finance their giving primarily through family-controlled foundations.

edited to add: With the caveats the researchers stated implied, of course.

[Logansquare]

49. Acc. to the methodology, random sampling isn't used

Instead, they just do an average of all taxpayers' average adjusted gross income. I mean, that's going to be low for Mississippi, and very high for Massachusetts.

"1. Average Adjusted Gross Income (AAGI): The average adjusted gross income of all taxpayers for a particular state

[Igel]

50. The sample doesn't have to be random.

The income distribution has to follow a normal distribution, the usual (Gaussian) curve that educators liked to grade by in the '70s. The cutoff for itemizing is fixed, so as the mean income increases, more would itemize. Also, you'd expect that either the donations or the absolute quantity of donations would increase. Then the rankings would be meaningful.

(I haven't done the math, but the nice mental graphs that spring to mind seem to be ok, even after a bit more thought.)

[Rose Siding]

21. They should try asking the wait-staff

[NashVegas]

22. Here's What The Article Doesn't Tell You

I live in a red state. I am a member of a few cultural institutions, all tax deductible contributions when you sign up.

This state (TN) doesn't provide nearly as much money for things like museums, zoos, theatre, etc as a state like NY does.

If we want to have an organization devoted to the arts, we have to build it ourselves. If we want to have a whole lot of things, we have to do it ourselves, can't count on the state.

The newspapers here also publish wishlists for the local charities. I don't recall seeing anything like that in the paper when I lived in NY and VT.

Regardless of religious institutions - and yeah, they do a lot here - we are encouraged to give often, and there are many reasons to do so. The amounts asked for are relatively small - they just add up.

[donheld]

24. What percent of Red state "charitable giving" goes to churches

there is a difference in charity gifts when it goes to a group that helps people, and giving to a church that just uses it to beat people up.

[robcon]

25. Disgusting post.

donheld wrote: "there is a difference in charity gifts when it goes to a group that helps people, and giving to a church that just uses it to beat people up."

Churches aren't the enemy, donheld. Churches don't "beat people up."

[donheld]

32. give me a break

you know what i meant :spank:
maybe you should go to some of the churches i've gone to.

[Demeter]

26. Seeeing As Michigan I s Close to Depression Economy for 4 years

It isn't surprising that giving is down. However, there are still state-funded services, paid by state income and sales taxes, that have no religious hangups about them....

[VegasWolf]

29. Giving money to Falwell so that he can get fatter doesn't count. n/t

[VegasWolf]

30. I wouldn't give money to any preacher. n/t

[genieroze]

33. We are to broke giving our taxes to the red states and getting less

for our money. That article says poorer states. Is that before taxes or after? Also this is the BIGGEST factor "In addition, an index like the one produced by the Catalogue of Philanthropy takes no account of the higher cost of living in many of the higher-income states." In NJ we are taxed to death here. We pay higher federal taxes which they give to the red states and we get little in return. We have a high state income tax which * wants to take away our deduction for even though the only reason we have it is because we get less federal money than we give. We have a sales tax, plus we pay tax on tax for cigarettes and alcohol. Our property taxes are through the roof and * wants to take away our deduction for that. Our sewer and water bills aren't considered taxes even though many states they are. You tell me why we don't give more because we are taxed to death in the blue states.

[captain jack]

34. Mississippi? The land of free slave labor for hundreds of years?

The home of the plantation owners? With all that hate, they have to give in hopes of saving thier asses from the darkest depths of hell where most of them racists morons are headed. The history, lifestyle, and beliefs of the red states explains why they would give more. I don't have as much of a guilty conscience or sad history of outright hatred, greed, murder, and the selling of humans here in the north. In fact, they should give a lot more in the red states.

[Rebel47]

48. Slavery began in New England...

Slavery was started in Mass. and Rhode Island. It began with the American Indians being sold into slavery in the islands. It evolved into slavery of Africans in the New England states as well. As you can see slavery has a very interesting history in the U.S.
To learn more on the topic "Myths of American Slavery" by Walter D Kennedy is a great start. It is currently in print.

[Megahurtz]

37. This is a bunch of crap

red State blue State who cares, the Republicans are selfish and mostly wealthy, a number of Democrats probably have much less money than the Repukes because they are giving by nature, the poor and/or losing money cannot afford to give, so...
:wtf:

[HuckleB]

39. Alas, most studies do show that the poor and middle class give more...

than the upper middle and wealthy folks -- that's across blue and red states. And certainly more than the corporations who are just out looking for cheap advertising with their "charity support" programs. Still, take away religious giving, and there is likely to be different picture in terms of giving by state.

[Liberty Belle]

41. Maybe blue staters donate online.

I'll bet we also tend to give more to progressive nonprofit groups like environmental organizations, but those donations are often made in response to online soliciations. Blue state residents tend to be richer and are probably more apt to have computers. So not cheaper, just giving through different venues.

[proudbluestater]

42. Sorry, none left, gave it all to Uncle Sam to support the red states

[pk_du]

43. The game is given away in their "technical notes"

See item 3

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/generosity_index/2004_us_notes.php

Definitions of Variables:


1. Average Adjusted Gross Income (AAGI): The average adjusted gross income of all taxpayers for a particular state

2. Having Rank: a ranking of the Average Adjusted Gross Income

3. Percent of Returns with Itemized Charitable Deductions (ICDs): the percentage of taxpayers itemizing charitable deductions (call them "donors" for conciseness). This is the aggregate data from the Internal Revenue Service on taxpayers who itemize and take a charitable deduction for their contributions. ****This information however, covers less than 30 percent of all US taxpayers, as over 70 percent take a standard deduction and do not itemize. Although the proportion of itemizing taxpayers is relatively small, their charitable deductions do represent about 60 percent of the total estimated charitable contributions in the United States (The Urban Institute, 2001)**** ( **** highlight by me)

4. Avg. Itemized Charitable Contribution: the average level of donations for a state

5. Giving Rank: a ranking of the average donations

6. Ranks Relation: Having Rank minus the Giving Rank

7. Generosity Index: The index is created by comparing the rank of each state's average adjusted gross income (AAGI) to the rank of each state's average itemized charitable deductions (AICD). The arithmetical differences between these two rankings are then themselves ranked, resulting in the Generosity Index rank.

[CAcyclist]

44. I think it's more that blue states have the obscenely

wealthy corporate ceos. They give a very small percent of their income - one example is Microsoft. Gates donates only a tiny percent of his income to his foundation, even though the actual amount seems quite large.

I think it's these people who skew the rest of the state to make it look less generous than it is.

[high density]

46. Why choose Gates to pick on?

He has endowed his foundation with $27 billion, and $4 billion has already been awarded to various causes in the last four years. If that isn't philanthropy, I don't know what is.

[high density]

45. Sinclair's Mark Hyman was yapping about this a few weeks ago

Evidently red staters are better at recording their "donations" (to churches) for tax purposes than blue state people are. At least the Christian Science Monitor notes the religious influence, unlike Hyman who just railed against liberals for supposedly not giving any money to charity.

I'd be curious as to what the results would be if they took churches out of the equation.

[daleo]

47. In Canada, we often hear our rate of giving compares unfavorably with U.S.

But when you have a more extensive social safety net, as we do in Canada, people naturally conclude:
- their taxes pay for most of the vital services, so the amount of real need is already reduced that way.
- they have done much of their share of altruistic giving, if they pay their taxes willingly.
- charity is inherently demeaning to recipient and giver, so it is preferable to use the tax system (heartwarming stories to the contrary, the poor are not thrilled with having to take charity).
- taxes are preferable to charity because they are more efficient (consider that many charities are lucky if even half of all money given is not used up by fund-raising activities).
- individuals cannot make well informed decisions about many charities (fraud, obscure medical conditions, etc.), so it is preferable for most of these decisions to be taken collectively, through the government.

Since the blue states tend to be higher tax jurisdictions than the red states and have more extensive social safety nets, much of the same reasoning may apply.

[gorbal]

51. Oh come on

It shouldn't even be considered a charity, they are givine for religiotainment, and the evangelist preachers suits and cars.