Generosity Index 2005

[ShadesOfGrey]

State Rankings

Make what you want of the results but I think to better understand what drives charitable giving and why certain areas of the country rank better we need to parse the results.

At first blush it looks like middle America scores higher on the index.

 

[Genx87]

I dont know how accurate it is but it is interesting to note blue states lack of generosity.
Now before liberals jump down my throat let me offer your a possible reason for this.

Blue states are typically higher taxed than red states and thus the disposable income of people is lower. Like we have seen in the EU when the state takes over the charity through taxation, when people are taxed they rarely have enough to give on their own.

Unsurprisingly when people arent taxed through the roof they tend to give more on their own.

 

[conjur]

We've been over this before (a year or so ago?)

Tithing by the people of the Christian faith, imo, isn't giving to charity. The church needs to cover its expenses and does so via the weekly offerings.

Compare true charitable donations (which, arguably, would be rather difficult) and then let's talk.

 

[techs]

First off the Blue state people may be taxed more but they still have far more disposable income than the red states.
Secondly Conjur is right on the money when he points out that donations to churches are a different kind of charity than other charities. According to this methodology if I give to Osama Bin Pat Robertson that is a donation to charity.
It is also highly likely the far greater poor and indigent people in the red states have so many more needs that people are donating to charity to help them.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: conjur
We've been over this before (a year or so ago?)

Tithing by the people of the Christian faith, imo, isn't giving to charity. The church needs to cover its expenses and does so via the weekly offerings.

Compare true charitable donations (which, arguably, would be rather difficult) and then let's talk.

This uses Charitable Deductions from the IRS data. You can try to drop numbers from it if you wish but you can make that argument for just about anything. Take away X and the result will be different than the original Y.

BTW, other charities use donations for operating expenses too, do you want to exclude all those too?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: conjur
We've been over this before (a year or so ago?)

Tithing by the people of the Christian faith, imo, isn't giving to charity. The church needs to cover its expenses and does so via the weekly offerings.

Compare true charitable donations (which, arguably, would be rather difficult) and then let's talk.

This uses Charitable Deductions from the IRS data. You can try to drop numbers from it if you wish but you can make that argument for just about anything. Take away X and the result will be different than the original Y.

BTW, other charities use donations for operating expenses too, do you want to exclude all those too?

What is the main purpose of a church? Is it for charity or is it for the spiritual education and growth of its congregation?

And then, what is the main purpose of a charity? Uhhhh...

 

[CanOWorms]

I would consider some donating to churches/temples/etc. to be valid since many do community work and other activities just like any other charity.

The index doesn't take into account volunteer time or non-itemized giving though.

 

[RightIsWrong]

It is pretty easy to say that the folks in Mass have a Median Income of $75,000 but only give $3000/avg while the fine folks in Miss have a Median Income of $40,000 and give $5000/avg. thus making the Mississippians much more gracious and the Massachussetians (or whatever they are called) as more greedy.

It should take into account that the average cost of a home in Jackson, Miss is $118.1k and in Boston it is $389.7k.

Metro area home prices

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: conjur
We've been over this before (a year or so ago?)

Tithing by the people of the Christian faith, imo, isn't giving to charity. The church needs to cover its expenses and does so via the weekly offerings.

Compare true charitable donations (which, arguably, would be rather difficult) and then let's talk.

This uses Charitable Deductions from the IRS data. You can try to drop numbers from it if you wish but you can make that argument for just about anything. Take away X and the result will be different than the original Y.

BTW, other charities use donations for operating expenses too, do you want to exclude all those too?

What is the main purpose of a church? Is it for charity or is it for the spiritual education and growth of its congregation?

And then, what is the main purpose of a charity? Uhhhh...

So what the funds are used for is what matters? As noted, other charities use funds for operating expenses. They also support different causes. So is there a list of causes that are good enough for you to be considered a "true" charities?

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: conjur
We've been over this before (a year or so ago?)

Tithing by the people of the Christian faith, imo, isn't giving to charity. The church needs to cover its expenses and does so via the weekly offerings.

Compare true charitable donations (which, arguably, would be rather difficult) and then let's talk.

This uses Charitable Deductions from the IRS data. You can try to drop numbers from it if you wish but you can make that argument for just about anything. Take away X and the result will be different than the original Y.

BTW, other charities use donations for operating expenses too, do you want to exclude all those too?

What is the main purpose of a church? Is it for charity or is it for the spiritual education and growth of its congregation?

And then, what is the main purpose of a charity? Uhhhh...

That is a good question, take for instance Farm Aid. They took in a little over a million dollars in donations and ended up with about 850K in expenses leaving abotu 200K for charity.

I think using the argument that Churches have expenses and thus are not a worthy charity is silly.

The Church I used to go to ended up running up a few million in debt because it was sending moeny to inner city youth programs, soup kitchens, overseas to poor people in other countries.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
It is pretty easy to say that the folks in Mass have a Median Income of $75,000 but only give $3000/avg while the fine folks in Miss have a Median Income of $40,000 and give $5000/avg. thus making the Mississippians much more gracious and the Massachussetians (or whatever they are called) as more greedy.

It should take into account that the average cost of a home in Jackson, Miss is $118.1k and in Boston it is $389.7k.

Metro area home prices

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/generosity_index/faq.html">3. Your ranking doesn?t seem to take into account costs of living, which may be why so-called ?wealthy states? such as Connecticut, California and Massachusetts rank lower in the Generosity Index.

Costs of living are difficult to take into account because there is no statewide data on costs of living -- that data is around metropolitan areas.

Furthermore, costs of living only kick in as a factor as you go down the income scale; at the upper reaches of income, costs of living are not an inhibiting factor, and the majority of charitable giving is done by those at the top of the income scales.
</a>

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
It is pretty easy to say that the folks in Mass have a Median Income of $75,000 but only give $3000/avg while the fine folks in Miss have a Median Income of $40,000 and give $5000/avg. thus making the Mississippians much more gracious and the Massachussetians (or whatever they are called) as more greedy.

It should take into account that the average cost of a home in Jackson, Miss is $118.1k and in Boston it is $389.7k.

Metro area home prices

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/generosity_index/faq.html">3. Your ranking doesn?t seem to take into account costs of living, which may be why so-called ?wealthy states? such as Connecticut, California and Massachusetts rank lower in the Generosity Index.

Costs of living are difficult to take into account because there is no statewide data on costs of living -- that data is around metropolitan areas.

Furthermore, costs of living only kick in as a factor as you go down the income scale; at the upper reaches of income, costs of living are not an inhibiting factor, and the majority of charitable giving is done by those at the top of the income scales.
</a>

That still doesn't take into account the numbers. Their little spiel about how it only effects the lower levels is a falacy. It effects all but the highest. Once again, if I have an average monthly income of $3000 and a mortgage of $300, do I have more money to donate to charity than someone that brings in an average of $5000/mo but pays $2000/mortgage.....do they really have twice as much disposable income as I do? Their salary would suggest yes, but reality paints a different picture.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: conjur
We've been over this before (a year or so ago?)

Tithing by the people of the Christian faith, imo, isn't giving to charity. The church needs to cover its expenses and does so via the weekly offerings.

Compare true charitable donations (which, arguably, would be rather difficult) and then let's talk.

This uses Charitable Deductions from the IRS data. You can try to drop numbers from it if you wish but you can make that argument for just about anything. Take away X and the result will be different than the original Y.

BTW, other charities use donations for operating expenses too, do you want to exclude all those too?

What is the main purpose of a church? Is it for charity or is it for the spiritual education and growth of its congregation?

And then, what is the main purpose of a charity? Uhhhh...

That is a good question, take for instance Farm Aid. They took in a little over a million dollars in donations and ended up with about 850K in expenses leaving abotu 200K for charity.

I think using the argument that Churches have expenses and thus are not a worthy charity is silly.

The Church I used to go to ended up running up a few million in debt because it was sending moeny to inner city youth programs, soup kitchens, overseas to poor people in other countries.

The argument that churches shouldn't count isn't based on expenses but that the church's maining function is not charity. The people making the donations are the ones benifiting from the donations.

It would be nice if we could get a ranking on donations that are truely to help the poor and drop the churchs, schools and other cultrual donations.

 

[Strk]

This has been discussed repeatedly. I know it has already been said, but it's easy to say the red states give more, but they also receive more from the federal government. They also have considerably less costs of living.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Strk
This has been discussed repeatedly. I know it has already been said, but it's easy to say the red states give more, but they also receive more from the federal government. They also have considerably less costs of living.

I'm not sure what Federal program spending has to do with Charitable donations.

The cost of living issue is addressed via the FAQ I linked in response to RightIsWrong.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Strk
This has been discussed repeatedly. I know it has already been said, but it's easy to say the red states give more, but they also receive more from the federal government. They also have considerably less costs of living.

I'm not sure what Federal program spending has to do with Charitable donations.

The cost of living issue is addressed via the FAQ I linked in response to RightIsWrong.

If our income is higher, who do you think gets hit harder? (And who gets more federal money, letting the state off the hook)

And the FAQ's reponse is pretty pathetic and doesn't really answer the question. They say cost of living only affects those at the lower levels, but the lower levels are quite a bit different from Jackson, Miss and Boston, MA.

I doubt you could find anywhere near Boston for the same price as Jackson, Miss that is actually nice enough to live in.

 

[ShadesOfGrey]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: ShadesOfGrey

Originally posted by: Strk
This has been discussed repeatedly. I know it has already been said, but it's easy to say the red states give more, but they also receive more from the federal government. They also have considerably less costs of living.

I'm not sure what Federal program spending has to do with Charitable donations.

The cost of living issue is addressed via the FAQ I linked in response to RightIsWrong.

If our income is higher, who do you think gets hit harder? (And who gets more federal money, letting the state off the hook)

hit harder for what? Taxes? Isn't "progressive" taxation great?! 😀 But since progressive taxation isn't a burden according to it's proponents and they won't miss or don't need the extra money, why not donate more too? But if your argument is that if those with higher incomes weren't taxed so much then they'd donate more - I'd agree. Let's lower all taxes and let free will charity giving take care or a lot of needs out there in society instead of the Federal government.

Again, I'm not sure how Federal programs affect charitable giving.

 

[irwincur]

Haha, liberal and caring leftists states hate poor people. Boy, didn't see this one coming...

 

[daniel49]

deducts the donations out from the aclu and watch the blue states disappear:Q

 

[glenn1]

This has been discussed repeatedly. I know it has already been said, but it's easy to say the red states give more, but they also receive more from the federal government. They also have considerably less costs of living.

You point out two very good reasons why the blue staters should give more in charity, there is a bigger need among your poor (refer back to the higher cost of living) and less government support. Sounds like all other things being equal, being poor in a blue state/city makes your lot that much more miserable than if you in a red area. Perhaps the call for higher taxes is a tacit admission by those in certain areas realizing they won't voluntarily donate, so they rationalize it by seeking to have it imposed on themselves.

 

[FrancesBeansRevenge]

If churches offered assistance without even the mention of their 'God' then it would be charity... as it is it's nothing more than a membership drive and scoring brownie points with your lord.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: irwincur
Haha, liberal and caring leftists states hate poor people. Boy, didn't see this one coming...

There are WAY more fiscally-conservative "liberals" out there than you think, buddy. Not all "liberals" are dirty hippies.

 

[Red Dawn]

Hey good for the Midwest Americans. Why I might agree with their regional politics I am proud that they are my fellow Americans.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I don't understand why people use these statistics to prove anything.

NH, which has the next to lowest state tax burden is dead last in giving. It's cost of living is substantially lower, and is conservative.

There are a lot of factors here.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: Genx87
I dont know how accurate it is but it is interesting to note blue states lack of generosity.
Now before liberals jump down my throat let me offer your a possible reason for this.

Blue states are typically higher taxed than red states and thus the disposable income of people is lower. Like we have seen in the EU when the state takes over the charity through taxation, when people are taxed they rarely have enough to give on their own.

Unsurprisingly when people arent taxed through the roof they tend to give more on their own.

Another possible explanation. This is one I formulated in the 90's when a comparison was made between the charitable contributions of Democrats and Republicans in Congress. (I DON"T remember the numbers... but it was something like) Republicans contributed 7% of their AGI and Democrats contributed 2%.

My thought is that Republicans tend to believe that people help people thus contribute more. Democrats tend to believe that it is the responsibility of the Government to help people so contribute less.

This is somewhat supported by my liberal friends who rarely contribute (yes, they contribute to PBS, pet charities, and situations such as Katrina) and readily comment about one agency or another designed to help people.

Obviously, some liberals donate heavily and some conservatives wouldn't donate to help their own family. I'm just suggesting a reason why such disparities exist.