• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Charitable Contributions as a percentage of income

M

Mill

Lifer
In January's Atlantic, there is a map showing different variable across the nation. One interesting map showed the nation and the percentage of income each area gave to charity. By a run-a-way margin, the South, Midwest, and the Upper Midwest gave the highest percentage of their income. Lowest was the Eastern Seaboard(from southern Maine to the southern part of Virginia), and the state of California. Amazingly, almost all Urban areas had MUCH lower percentage of income charity giving than did the rural areas. I'm going to see if I can get the online copy of this map and post it, but it was very interesting to me.

It seems as if those "hicks" and "rednecks" give more of their money to those in need than any of the slick-city-dwellers. Interesting, isn't it? I posted something similar to this last month, but most people yelled and screamed and said it wasn't accurate. This info is from The U.S. Census Bureau, the Audit Bureau of Circulations, and a company called Applied Geographic Solutions. Looking for an online version as we speak.

Edit: Here is a link to a PDF of the article's maps.
 
How does the amount they donate compare to the amount they get in tax benefits coming from the blue states? (You know, the fact that red states get more then they spend in federal taxes and vice versa for the blue states).

 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
How does the amount they donate compare to the amount they get in tax benefits coming from the blue states? (You know, the fact that red states get more then they spend in federal taxes and vice versa for the blue states).
Click to expand...

Typically those in urban areas receive similar assistance, because those receiving farm subsidies are few and far between in rural areas. Rural areas actually have a lower rate of poverty per-capita and in raw numbers than urban areas. Thus, even with farm subsidies -- those in Urban areas(giving less) get just as much assistance. However, this is simply a moot point since you have nothing to back up your point. Nothing. Show some proof that those giving more are getting any type of assistance. I've gave a great deal of money last year to charity, and I'm certainly not getting anything from the government. Continue to perpetuate your poor, stupid, hick myth, and I'll continue to realize you are a troll.

However, :cookie: for your Red Herring.
 
Could it be because those "charitable" states are getting tax money from "non-charitable" states, so they are just being charitable with our money?
 
States like CA and Northeast only get 70% of the federal taxes they pay back. So 30% of their taxes are charity for these other states. Do those charity figures include that?
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Or could it be that we have real social services systems instead of relying on charity?
Click to expand...

Stop speculating. You're just trying to find an excuse, anything, as to why the South and Midwest is more volunteering when it comes to charitable donations than the relatively secular Northeast and Cali.
 
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Or could it be that we have real social services systems instead of relying on charity?
Click to expand...

Stop speculating. You're just trying to find an excuse, anything, as to why the South and Midwest is more volunteering when it comes to charitable donations than the relatively secular Northeast and Cali.
Click to expand...

Not really. Like I said 30% of our federal tax money goes to other states. I can guarantee you that is leaps and bounds over any charity that flows from other states to CA. And we have charitable social services by law, instead of having people beg for handouts. When a population votes to support the sick and disabled with their taxes, that is charity just as much as if they gave that tax money directly to the sick.
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
States like CA and Northeast only get 70% of the federal taxes they pay back. So 30% of their taxes are charity for these other states. Do those charity figures include that?
Click to expand...

POST PROOF, not a red herring! For fvcks sake people, I'm posting factual information, and you are responding with unsubstantiated drivel.
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Or could it be that we have real social services systems instead of relying on charity?
Click to expand...

Stop speculating. You're just trying to find an excuse, anything, as to why the South and Midwest is more volunteering when it comes to charitable donations than the relatively secular Northeast and Cali.
Click to expand...

Not really. Like I said 30% of our federal tax money goes to other states. I can guarantee you that is leaps and bounds over any charity that flows from other states to CA. And we have charitable social services by law, instead of having people beg for handouts. When a population votes to support the sick and disabled with their taxes, that is charity just as much as if they gave that tax money directly to the sick.
Click to expand...

Post PROOF.
 
I would imagine that contributions to a church would make a big portion of the charity in the South and other areas. Not that this invalidates the entire map or statistics or anything...
 
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: SuperTool
States like CA and Northeast only get 70% of the federal taxes they pay back. So 30% of their taxes are charity for these other states. Do those charity figures include that?
Click to expand...

POST PROOF, not a red herring! For fvcks sake people, I'm posting factual information, and you are responding with unsubstantiated drivel.
Click to expand...

It's called Google. Use it.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/tax...9/red_states_feed.html
http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm
 
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: Infohawk
How does the amount they donate compare to the amount they get in tax benefits coming from the blue states? (You know, the fact that red states get more then they spend in federal taxes and vice versa for the blue states).
Click to expand...

Typically those in urban areas receive similar assistance, because those receiving farm subsidies are few and far between in rural areas. Rural areas actually have a lower rate of poverty per-capita and in raw numbers than urban areas. Thus, even with farm subsidies -- those in Urban areas(giving less) get just as much assistance. However, this is simply a moot point since you have nothing to back up your point. Nothing. Show some proof that those giving more are getting any type of assistance. I've gave a great deal of money last year to charity, and I'm certainly not getting anything from the government. Continue to perpetuate your poor, stupid, hick myth, and I'll continue to realize you are a troll.

However, :cookie: for your Red Herring.
Click to expand...


POST PROOF
 
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: SuperTool
States like CA and Northeast only get 70% of the federal taxes they pay back. So 30% of their taxes are charity for these other states. Do those charity figures include that?
Click to expand...

POST PROOF, not a red herring! For fvcks sake people, I'm posting factual information, and you are responding with unsubstantiated drivel.
Click to expand...

It's called Google. Use it.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/tax...9/red_states_feed.html
http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm
Click to expand...

Yup.

And tax burden DOES relate to your topic. You have to put your data in perspective. Your attempt to paint red states as a land of giving needs to be tempered by the reality of the federal tax situation. More generally, you have to take into consideration what people give in taxes too and people's attitudes towards taxation and charity. Not everyone thinks of taxes as an injustice but a chance to help out other people, indeed as another form of charity. It makes sense that such people would give less in pure charitable giving if they feel they are already giving in other ways.

Anyway, this will be my last post on this topic since when faced with a challenge you can only scream troll. :roll:
 
Also, it's charitable contributions as percentage of income.
Is it our fault you are, as Chris Rock would say, a bunch of broke-@ss white people, living in a trailer home, eatin' mayonnaise sandwiches, fvcking their sister, and listening to John Cougar Mellencamp records? 😀
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Mill
Originally posted by: SuperTool
States like CA and Northeast only get 70% of the federal taxes they pay back. So 30% of their taxes are charity for these other states. Do those charity figures include that?
Click to expand...

POST PROOF, not a red herring! For fvcks sake people, I'm posting factual information, and you are responding with unsubstantiated drivel.
Click to expand...

It's called Google. Use it.
http://taxprof.typepad.com/tax...9/red_states_feed.html
http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm
Click to expand...

Yup.

And tax burden DOES relate to your topic. You have to put your data in perspective. Your attempt to paint red states as a land of giving needs to be tempered by the reality of the federal tax situation. More generally, you have to take into consideration what people give in taxes too and people's attitudes towards taxation and charity. Not everyone thinks of taxes as an injustice but a chance to help out other people, indeed as another form of charity. It makes sense that such people would give less in pure charitable giving if they feel they are already giving in other ways.

Anyway, this will be my last post on this topic since when faced with a challenge you can only scream troll. :roll:
Click to expand...

And both are you are so obtuse that you *think* correlation is equal to causation. Post some proof that THEY GIVE MORE BECAUSE THEY GET MORE IN BENEFITS. Post PROOF of that to prove that is what causes it. Simple correlation is stupid, as are both of you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top