Blue staters not charitable?

[Pryderi]

New Hampshire is named most miserly state

By JERRY HARKAVY
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

PORTLAND, Maine -- New Englanders remain among the most tightfisted in the country when it comes to charitable giving while Bible Belt residents are among the most generous, according to an annual index.

snip

The index, released to The Associated Press last week, takes into account both "having" and "giving." It is based on average adjusted gross incomes and the value of itemized charitable donations reported to the Internal Revenue Service on 2003 tax returns, the latest available.

snip

the 10 most generous states were, in descending order, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Utah, South Carolina and West Virginia.

The 10 stingiest, starting from the bottom, were New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Minnesota, Colorado, Hawaii and Michigan

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Charitable_Giving.html

[LondonReign2]

1. Tithing to a megachurch is NOT charity

It is attempting to buy redemption.

[Pryderi]

6. Donating to Pat Robertson, Falwell et. al. is more political than

charitable

[cloud_chaser1]

13. Not being Christian, I may be mistaken but

I always thought that tithing was an obligation or mandatory and not something donwe out of the goodness of ones heart. How can it be voluntary when they tell you exactly how much you MUST give?

To me, charity is when you give as much as you can, when you can and not on a fixed schedule.

That survey or poll or whatever it was, sound like just an exercize in one upsmanship. Sort of like who is the greatest humble person in the world?

[LondonReign2]

14. It is not mandatory

At least in most Christian religions. Some churches push harder for it than others, but most do not set tithing (often 10%) as mandatory.

One of the predatory megachurches here in Texas was pushing for 10% tithing. Then, they began saying that 10% of your *after tax* income was acceptable, but "the Lord perferred" 10% of your *pre-tax* income.

:eyes:

[Arugula Latte]

25. I think that tax policy was laid out in Revelations, was it not?

:eyes:

[Burning Water]

16. Well, I'm not

here to defend the Christians, but "mandatory" is when you have to do something. Tithing is voluntary because you don't have to give. What are they going to do, throw you in jail? Nope, at worst, they can kick you out of the church. They're not the IRS, after all. So what? You don't have to go to that church, either.

[Finder]

23. Well shunning is common...

and most know who is not tithing...

[Burning Water]

27. And so?

This still isn't "mandatory". Where's the force. Don't these people have the courage of their convictions, or in this case, cheapness.

Check out this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2265722

Here's people willing to sacrifice their most meaningful relationships for their principles. And people worry about being 'shunned' by mere acquaintances?? Ok, maybe they are cowardly FReepers, but still, why feel sorry for them. They have a perfect right to make their choices and take their consequences.

And if the church tells you you must tithe or go to Hell, well, if you believe that stuff, you still have a choice.

[Finder]

30. No, it is more complicated than fear of Hell or friends.

Many of these people depend on their church community for their children's education, their social life and in many cases their jobs.

[Burning Water]

32. OK. I can buy that.

It just goes to show the perils of dependency. There's a trade-off for everything.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. I think contributions to churches is included and that kind of skews it.

[SteppingRazor]

3. But... more New Englanders gave...

just in lesser amounts. Whereas in the South, there were greater contributions, but by fewer people. I think this could reflect any number of things -- greater class stratification in the South, for example. It could also reflect cultural mores of the South, not just religious ones.

That said, it could also simply be the case that the South just plain gives more to charity. :shrug:

[LondonReign2]

7. We'd have to examine the methodology

but I would bet the vast majority of "charity" is giving to their churches. That hardly counts, in my book.

[Mass]

10. Here is a study of the methodology.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/bc-nro111405.php

[LondonReign2]

17. So it is based on IRS deductions

Which include, I presume, donations to churches as well as folks like Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson?

[trogdor]

18. So red staters cheat on their taxes more.

Big surprise. :sarcasm:

[Richard Steele]

4. Those numbers might look different if they only counted REAL charities...

You know, like if they didn't count all the money sent to Falwell
and James Dobson, etc...

Sending money to Pseudoreligious con men is NOT the same
as "charitable giving", IMO.

[curlyred]

5. blue state tax dollars go to red states

In a pretty lopsided manner.

Many fault the methodology of this study, which doesn't take into account cost of living and several other pertinent factors. Check NPR's website for more information.

[Mass]

8. This does not take into account the cost of living.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/bc-nro111405.php

New report on state-by-state charitable giving across US
Boston College researchers find states previously labeled 'stingy' have higher generosity levels than previously reported; Researchers call for new, more rigorous way to calculate giving
CHESTNUT HILL, MA (11-14-05) – States previously reported to lag behind the nation in charitable giving actually have higher generosity levels than those indicated by a widely-touted annual index, according to a new study conducted by researchers at the Boston College Center on Wealth and Philanthropy.
...

What's wrong with the Index

Geography and Generosity includes an analysis of the Generosity Index--which is based on income tax returns--and determined that it is inaccurate in part because of a built-in bias against high-income states, such as Massachusetts, and for low-income states such as Mississippi, which has frequently come out as the most generous state in the nation on the Index. When Schervish and his team used the same formula that was used by Dr. George McCully, publisher of the Catalogue for Philanthropy and the creator of the Generosity Index, they determined that even if Massachusetts residents had given 100 or 1,000 times the amount of money that was in fact donated to charity in 2004, and held giving by all other states constant, Massachusetts could not rise above number 23 on the Index. At the same time, the calculation suggested that the state of Mississippi would not fall below 26th place out of 50 even if residents of that state had given zero to charity in 2004.

In addition to the methodological bias in the index, Schervish and Havens cite what they believe to be three critical errors in the Index methodology:

* Average adjusted gross income is calculated for one group of people (all who filed income tax forms), while the average charitable deduction is calculated for a separate group--those who itemize their returns. Because the two groups are not the same, no meaningful ratio of generosity can be calculated using this data.
* The use of itemized returns adds doubt to any conclusions because while only 20 percent of residents in some states itemize their returns, the proportion in other states rises as high as 40 percent. In specific, 21 percent of residents of Mississippi filed itemized returns while 37 percent of Massachusetts residents did the same. This reflects a much higher cost of living in Massachusetts. In particular, the cost of housing in the Bay State is significantly higher than in Mississippi which would encourage more residents to itemize their returns in order to take advantage of the deduction for mortgage interest. This underscores important differences in standards of living that have an influence on giving.
* Also, tax returns do not capture the total income of all the residents of a state, and itemized tax returns do not capture the total charitable contribution they make. Those who are not required to file an income tax return, for example, are lost to the calculation of the Index.

[NewJeffCT]

15. great analysis - I had an LTTE published on this list last year

The list was basically the same as last year. The itemized deductions piece is what really drives it.

Also, while donations to churches in the South are often tax deductible, a lot of the major corporations (often located in blue states) do things for charity that may or may not be deductible for an employee, i.e., allowing Joe Worker and Jane Employee a few hours off to participate in a United Way event.

[TahitiNut]

21. I'd be far more interested in the ratio of unearned income ...

... (which includes capital gains and dividends) and charitable deductions in those states, only tallying returns with itemized deductions. :shrug:

[Toots]

9. These states are the most likely to cheat on income taxes

I suspect this is where this list comes from. Charitable giving as a deduction from paying taxes. They will claim anything to get out of paying their fair share of our countries bills.

[Epiphany4z]

11. I don't know how you record something like charity

except with IRS tax info. I give a little to local charity when I can it is often not $$ its food clothing or just my time. I have never asked for the receipt for taxes either it wouldn't change my taxes.

[MaineYooper]

12. "...its methodology has been criticized..."

the validity of the measures discussed here is very much an open question. Here's another paragraph from the article.



"If everyone in Massachusetts gave 100 times as much to charity as we do today and everything else remains the same, we wouldn't get above the bottom half of the chart," said David Trueblood, a spokesman for the foundation. "And no matter what Mississippi did, it couldn't fall below 22nd or 23rd."

[progressivebydesign]

19. Nothing to do with Red or Blue, it has to do with money.

Oddly enough, people with less money give more than people with more money (that is not accounting for uber rich who give as part of their overall financial picture). From my days in non-profits, we all knew that the people with less tended to give more.

Also, there is much more religion-oriented giving in the bible belt. Tithing and other things are big there, as well as donating money to creepy televangelists.

[losdiablosgato]

28. I agree with that, people with more do not give as much

I once amny years ago was sacking groceries while in high school. The best tips were from blue collar families in chevies or fords. The rich people in audis and bmw's would stiff you half the time.

[TahitiNut]

20. A small minority of taxpayers actually itemize deductions.

It's a bullshit study that only measures the affluent -- who, in the states listed as "charitable," are far more interested in power and influence than "giving."

[trogdor]

22. We have this thing called 50-50 in upstate NY.

It might be a local thing, or it might be more universal than that. Anyway, it's kind of a impromptu raffle thingy where you buy chances for a buck or two (in cash) and there's a drawing at the end, where the winner splits the pot with whatever charitable cause the raffle was supposedly for. These are wildly popular amongst Upstaters, and the IRS usually doesn't have any way of measuring how much dough gets raised this way.

[Vinca]

24. I'm from New Hampshire and , at the moment , very stingy.

Why? Because energy prices are sky high, health care prices are sky high, property taxes are sky high, food prices are increasing . . . you get my drift. If I can't afford to buy health insurance . . . which I can't . . . it stands to reason my donations are limited. New Hampshire gives the false impression that it's an economical place to live because there's no sales tax. Think again. We had to put in a septic system and with all the planning fees, licensing fees and overbuilding, the thing cost $15,000. You need to purchase a permit to look cross-eyed in this state.

[rucky]

26. Why does the study assume that only wealthy people give?

I noticed some of the most charitable states are also the poorest. I also know that a disproportionate amount of charity comes from the middle class (and TEENAGERS, btw).

If anybody knows what study I'm citing, please post.

[Bake]

29. So much disinformation here it's ridiculous

As one who is a Southerner, and who has been a member of Southern Baptist churches most of his life, I can comment on several of the items of mis/dis-information here:

a. Tithing is not mandatory in conservative churches. They can't make anyone do it. They do try to shame you into it, guilt you into it, etc. But it is still not mandatory.

b. You will not go to hell for not tithing. I've never heard that from any Baptist pulpit.

c. They don't publish lists of who does or does not tithe, and very few people know with certainty who the big givers are or how much they give.

d. It's "Revelation" (Book of ...), not "Revelations." Or just call it The Apocalypse. No tax planning there (I know, that was a joke, after all).

Beyond the ecclesiastical misinformation, I am really not shocked at the not-so-subtle South-bashing; it goes on almost constantly here. This thread has seen everything from "they're more likely to cheat on their taxes" (and how exactly do you know that?) to (and I paraphrase) "they're sending it all to Dobson et al." And again, I can't help but wonder, how do you know who they're sending it to? Does Dobson's support come only from the South? I don't think so.

Then there are the northerners making excuses -- "it costs more to live here" or "it costs more to heat my house ..." etc.

If you want to challenge the study's methodology, fine. Don't assume, however, that because the study is driven by the itemized deduction criterion, it only includes the "affluent." Virtually anyone who owns a house and has a mortgage of any size whatsoever probably benefits from itemizing, for the mortgage interest deduction. That means not just the affluent but the middle class and working class as well. So critique the methodology, but be intellectually honest here. Anyone can come up with a methodology that makes one's chosen group look "better."

It obviously just kills some of you that Mississippi ranked first on this list. I know, it's a "red" state (that whole red/blue thing bullshit anyway -- there are a lot of good Dems here in Mississippi), so the working assumption on DU is that everything in MS (and elsewhere in the South to boot) must be utter shit. But that is mistaken. When the Trade Center fell, e.g., multitudes of Mississippians and other Southerners dug deep into their pockets to send what they could for relief. We didn't piss and moan about it being NEW YORK CITY.

I have found the vast majority of Mississippians, politics aside, to be warm and generous people. Even some of the Repubs here. It's a Southern thing.

Flame away if you wish.

Bake

[ComerPerro]

31. Suddenly Red staters want to compare based on wealth?

And rate generosity on a percentage of total funds given?

By that logic and rationale, the United States is one of the most miserly countries on the planet.




And, BTW, illegally deducted donations to Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, et. al shouldn't count.