Those F-ing, Ignorant, Low IQ, Red States, Racist, Intolorant, Moral Lacking BASTARDS

[Dreadsox]

Give more to charity than they are given credit for. Please NOTE where the blue states are........

Thank you........


1)Mississippi (BUSH)
2)Arkansas(BUSH)
3)Oklahoma(BUSH)
4)Louisiana(BUSH)
5)Alabama (BUSH)
6)Tennessee (BUSH)
7)South Dakota (BUSH)
8)Utah (BUSH)
9)South Carolina (BUSH)
10)Idaho (BUSH)
Wyoming (BUSH)
Texas (BUSH)
West Virginia (BUSH)
Nebraska (BUSH)
North Dakota (BUSH)
North Carolina (BUSH)
Kansas (BUSH)
Florida (BUSH)
Georgia (BUSH)
Kentucky(BUSH)
Montana (BUSH)
Missouri (BUSH)
New Mexico (BUSH)
Alaska (BUSH)
Indiana (BUSH)
New York (Kerry)
Iowa (BUSH)
Ohio (BUSH)
California (Kerry)
Maryland (Kerry)
Illinois (Kerry)
Maine (Kerry)
Delaware (Kerry)
Washington (Kerry)
Vermont (Kerry)
Oregon (Bush)
Hawaii (Kerry)
Virginia (BUSH)
Arizona (BUSH)
40)Nevada (BUSH)
41)Pennsylvania (Kerry)
42)Michigan (Kerry)
43)Colorado (BUSH)
44)Connecticut (Kerry)
45)Minnesota (Kerry)
46)Wisconsin (Kerry)
47)New Jersey (Kerry)
48)Rhode Island (Kerry)
49)Massachusetts (Kerry)
50)New Hampshire (Kerry)

Oh, guess which states make the LEAST amount of money and give the most? You guessed it, those cheap ass Bush loving States at the top. They clearly do not know what charity is!!!!!!!!

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


Have fun with this one....

 

[joyfulgirl]

I believe it's called tithing.

 

[DrTeeth]

I believe it's called tithing.

Really I thought it was called guilt.

 

[Dreadsox]

I believe it's called tithing.

I believe we should be in a bar having a beer laughing at that one together......

but no...its income tax based...click on the link.

 

[nbcrusader]

So the Blue states want to tax you and have the government create a program, while the red states just contribute directly to the needy?

 

[Dreadsox]

So the Blue states want to tax you and have the government create a program, while the red states just contribute directly to the needy?

Very interesting point you make there......

Maybe the states at the bottom prefer to rob from the rich and give to the poor?

Since they are so stingy with their money maybe that is why they think this way?

 

[diamond]

proportionately speaking, per capita who gives more to charity a liberal or a conservative on average?

and do they demand a special wrist band in doing so?

thank u-



db9

 

[Dreadsox]

and do they demand a special wrist band in doing so?

thank u-

db9

You mad me snarf......

OMG......

No wrist band.....an elephant watch!!!

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Honestly, how many beers does it take for you guys to get so upset with a democracy?

 

[speedracer]

Very interesting point you make there......

Maybe the states at the bottom prefer to rob from the rich and give to the poor?

Since they are so stingy with their money maybe that is why they think this way?

Kind of a chicken-or-the-egg problem here...maybe people have little left over to give because Taxachusetts takes all their money.

Either way, the correlation is very plausible, since it is a conservative belief that the government shouldn't be dictating to people how to give away their money.

 

[Irvine511]

So the Blue states want to tax you and have the government create a program, while the red states just contribute directly to the needy?

yes, because charity is insufficient to address needs that only the government can, like public schools, after school programs, etc. charity is nice, but not a substitute for real programs with real dollars behind them. carving a turkey in a homeless shelter on Thanksgiving isn't enough; federally subsidized shelters, job retraining programs, and psychiatric services are much more effective.

 

[DrTeeth]

This is also interesting. The percentage of people living below the poverty line:

1)Mississippi (BUSH) 17.2
2)Arkansas(BUSH) 18.8
3)Oklahoma(BUSH) 13,5
4)Louisiana(BUSH) 17.2
5)Alabama (BUSH) 14.7
6)Tennessee (BUSH) 14,4
7)South Dakota (BUSH) 12.1
8)Utah (BUSH) 9.5
9)South Carolina (BUSH) 13.5
10)Idaho (BUSH) 10.8
Wyoming (BUSH) 9.4
Texas (BUSH) 16.3
West Virginia (BUSH) 17.1
Nebraska (BUSH) 10.2
North Dakota (BUSH) 10.6
North Carolina (BUSH) 15.0
Kansas (BUSH) 10.4
Florida (BUSH) 12.6
Georgia (BUSH) 11.5
Kentucky(BUSH) 14.3
Montana (BUSH) 14.3
Missouri (BUSH) 10.3
New Mexico (BUSH) 18.0
Alaska (BUSH) 9.2
Indiana (BUSH) 9.5
New York (Kerry) 14.2
Iowa (BUSH) 9.1
Ohio (BUSH) 10.3
California (Kerry) 13.1
Maryland (Kerry) 8.0
Illinois (Kerry) 12.7
Maine (Kerry) 12.5
Delaware (Kerry) 8.2
Washington (Kerry) 11.8
Vermont (Kerry) 9.2
Oregon (Bush) 11.7
Hawaii (Kerry) 10.3
Virginia (BUSH) 10.0
Arizona (BUSH) 13.5
40)Nevada (BUSH) 9.9
41)Pennsylvania (Kerry) 10.0
42)Michigan (Kerry) 11.5
43)Colorado (BUSH) 9.7
44)Connecticut (Kerry) 8.2
45)Minnesota (Kerry) 6.9
46)Wisconsin (Kerry) 9.2
47)New Jersey (Kerry) 8.3
48)Rhode Island (Kerry) 11.3
49)Massachusetts (Kerry) 10.1
50)New Hampshire (Kerry) 5.8

I'm looking forward to seeing people from both sides trying to mold these figures into their favour.

 

[Irvine511]

Kind of a chicken-or-the-egg problem here...maybe people have little left over to give because Taxachusetts takes all their money.

as a Connecticuttian who has dealt with Massholes his entire life, let me say that i am sick of all this massachusetts bashing. why not a big "thank you" to the state that, you know, gave birth to the United States with people like Sam Adams and Paul Revere. why do you think all those monuments are up there? and what about the world's greatest institutions of higher learning? like, you know, Harvard, MIT, BC, BU, Tufts ... don't want a big university? how about the two most prestigious liberal arts colleges in the Nation, Williams and Amherst? the nation's lowest divorce rate. a city with actual public transportation. low murder rates.

it drives me nuts when people complain about taxes. enjoy those roads you drive on? how about the Tennesee Valley Authority and it's electricity? hurricane relief in Florida?

all this comes from taxes.

 

[speedracer]

The poverty line is uniform across the nation, whereas a dollar in Mississippi is worth more than a dollar in Massachusetts.

Not sure who this favors, but it's still a true fact.

 

[speedracer]

as a Connecticuttian who has dealt with Massholes his entire life, let me say that i am sick of all this massachusetts bashing. why not a big "thank you" to the state that, you know, gave birth to the United States with people like Sam Adams and Paul Revere. why do you think all those monuments are up there? and what about the world's greatest institutions of higher learning? like, you know, Harvard, MIT, BC, BU, Tufts ... don't want a big university? how about the two most prestigious liberal arts colleges in the Nation, Williams and Amherst? the nation's lowest divorce rate. a city with actual public transportation. low murder rates.

it drives me nuts when people complain about taxes. enjoy those roads you drive on? how about the Tennesee Valley Authority and it's electricity? hurricane relief in Florida?

all this comes from taxes.

Nice to know one of us has a sense of humor. Look at the box to the left.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

I agree with Irvine511. We criticize Bush 100 times more than Osama bin Laden.

 

[nbcrusader]

yes, because charity is insufficient to address needs that only the government can, like public schools, after school programs, etc. charity is nice, but not a substitute for real programs with real dollars behind them. carving a turkey in a homeless shelter on Thanksgiving isn't enough; federally subsidized shelters, job retraining programs, and psychiatric services are much more effective.

Only to the extent that people prefer to let their taxes do the work so they don't have to get directly involved.

 

[sharky]

I don't really understand how they got this. When you sort the data by percentage of returns with charitible itemized deductions, you find that of the top ten, most are blue.

Maryland [kerry] 44.5%
New Jersey [kerry]
Connecticut [kerry]
Minnesota [kerry]
Utah
Massachusetts [kerry]
New York [kerry]
Colorado
Virginia
Oregon [kerry]

Mississippi, which is ranked one on this generosity ranking is 46 out of 50 when sorted by percentage of tax returns with itemized reductions at 20.7%. The US average is 31%.

And when you look at the breakout data, you find that those with the money -- $200K and above -- are hording it alot more in red states than blue states.

It also doesn't take into account disposal income percentages, which would give people more space to give more money, tax percentages, which would skew the results if people are trying to get more tax breaks to avoid high local and state taxes, and it doesn't take into account the value of a dollar, which is alot higher in states like NY than states like Mississippi.

 

[indra]

Well, your title for this thread was great, Dread....

 

[speedracer]

I don't really understand how they got this. When you sort the data by percentage of returns with charitible itemized deductions, you find that of the top ten, most are blue.

Maryland [kerry] 44.5%
New Jersey [kerry]
Connecticut [kerry]
Minnesota [kerry]
Utah
Massachusetts [kerry]
New York [kerry]
Colorado
Virginia
Oregon [kerry]

Mississippi, which is ranked one on this generosity ranking is 46 out of 50 when sorted by percentage of tax returns with itemized reductions at 20.7%. The US average is 31%.

Does this mean that blue states give more, or that we're missing a lot of undeclared red-state contributions? It's not clear.

And when you look at the breakout data, you find that those with the money -- $200K and above -- are hording it alot more in red states than blue states.

It also doesn't take into account disposal income percentages, which would give people more space to give more money, tax percentages, which would skew the results if people are trying to get more tax breaks to avoid high local and state taxes, and it doesn't take into account the value of a dollar, which is alot higher in states like NY than states like Mississippi.

Well, the non-uniform value of a dollar affects the true value of the income and the giving, so the two effects should roughly cancel out.

Also, since the federal standard deduction is uniform across the country, the deduction looks a lot higher to red states. So you might expect more red staters to have donated an amount of money that is less than the standard deduction. Hence the non-itemized, non-declared giving.

 

[sharky]

Speed -- true and true. Plus, the Web site makes it sound like it's out to prove Massachusetts is a bad state.

"The Generosity Index™ (GI) was conceived in 1997 as a concise way to summarize Massachusetts' and New England's greatest problem in philanthropy: that we have the nation's largest gap between our ranks in income and our ranks in charitable giving. The Generosity Index, with its "catchy" name, publicizes that fact and provides a way to monitor progress against the problem."

The numbers can be manipulated any way you want them to to prove your particular point. For example, even I can do it! I pulled out my trusty Excel skills and did a little number crunching. When you divide the amount of charitible contributions by the number of returns, you find that the most generous state is Utah, which gives an average $210.89 per return while the cheapest state is West Virginia, which gives a measly $47.28 per return. Mississippi ranks #31.

Utah $210.89
Maryland $158.94
New York $144.37
Georgia $137.30
Connecticut $130.91
New Jersey $124.82
California $121.72
Virginia $120.80
North Carolina $118.53
Alabama $116.36
Colorado $115.53
South Carolina $114.25
Minnesota $113.27
Delaware $110.64
Oklahoma $109.91
Massachusetts $108.79
Illinois $108.13
Wyoming $107.38
Idaho $104.90
Michigan $102.06
Oregon $101.48
Arizona $101.48
Tennessee $100.82
Nevada $98.86
Washington $98.84
Kansas $97.81
Florida $96.47
Nebraska $94.54
Mississippi $92.86
Arkansas $92.25
Missouri $90.91
Texas $90.32
Pennsylvania $87.76
Indiana $86.12
Kentucky $84.40
Hawaii $84.01
Wisconsin $83.92
Ohio $83.10
Iowa $80.24
Rhode Island $78.82
Montana $75.83
Louisiana $75.58
New Hampshire $73.06
Alaska $71.85
New Mexico $66.56
Vermont $62.48
Maine $62.10
South Dakota $56.87
North Dakota $53.57
West Virginia $47.28

 

[speedracer]

Right. Ultimately what we need is some estimate on the non-itemized charitable contributions. Maybe what one could do is look at charitable contributions vs. income for taxpayers in a certain state, plot a graph and try to extrapolate from that.

 

[Dreadsox]

Well, your title for this thread was great, Dread....

Thank you!!!!

 

[Dreadsox]

Sharky...they get it by looking at the average income per state, the average amount given to charity......

It is kind of silly to compare the total amount, given the fact that some states have more people.

 

[Dreadsox]

Technical Notes for 2004 Generosity Index (2002 Data)

The Generosity Index™ (GI) was conceived in 1997 as a concise way to summarize Massachusetts' and New England's greatest problem in philanthropy: that we have the nation's largest gap between our ranks in income and our ranks in charitable giving. The Generosity Index, with its "catchy" name, publicizes that fact and provides a way to monitor progress against the problem. We arrive at it by ranking each state's Average Adjusted Gross Income (AAGI) and Average Itemized Charitable Contribution (AICD or AICC), then subtracting the second rank from the first to get a single plus or minus number for each state indicating the favorable or unfavorable gap separating the ranks, and then ranking those numbers. Thus:

AAGI rank - AICD rank = Gap; Rank of Gap = Generosity Index

Example: MA in 1996*:
3rd - 43rd = -40 Gap; Rank of Gap = 50th

*The numbers are always two years old when published by the IRS, so these numbers from 1996 would have been published in 1998.

The words "Generosity Index" refer to the system and methodology of comparatively ranking the relation of every state's ranks in itemized charitable giving and in income, based on the comprehensive data of personal income tax returns. It has long been generally agreed that philanthropic generosity is not just how much one gives, but how much one gives in relation to how much one has-the so-called "widow's mite" phenomenon. As we have said from the outset, the Generosity Index is a "crude but telling" indicator; it is not scientific (e.g., economics, sociology) but it is educational, and specifically for donor education. It tells people roughly where they stand in comparison with their peers in other communities, in the relation between their respective ranks in income and in charitable giving. By doing so it raises the level of public discussions of charitable giving, in ways that are strategically useful.

Definitions of Variables:


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

Having Rank: a ranking of the Average Adjusted Gross Income

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)

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

Giving Rank: a ranking of the average donations

Ranks Relation: Having Rank minus the Giving Rank

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.

 

[Dreadsox]

The poverty line is uniform across the nation, whereas a dollar in Mississippi is worth more than a dollar in Massachusetts.

Not sure who this favors, but it's still a true fact.

I had not even thought of that....hmmm

 

[sharky]

Sharky...they get it by looking at the average income per state, the average amount given to charity......

It is kind of silly to compare the total amount, given the fact that some states have more people.

Right, but they don't take into account the number of returns with itemized charitible credits. Mississippi's average gross is the lowest in the country and while their average itemized reductions is higher than most [5], it doesn't take into account that only 20% of Mississippi residents donated money in 2002. NY is ranked 5 [not 50] based on gross income and 9th based on charitible deductions but comes in 26th place even though 36% of taxes have tax deductions?

If you sort the data by total income, you find that those states with the most amount of income, despite the fact that they give more per person and have a higher percentage of returns with charitible deductions, is hurt because they actually have money to start out with. It favors poor states.

 

[Dreadsox]

I will for the moment give you this theory that it favors the poor states.....

Shouldn't it........

By the fact that they are poor, and have less to give, shouldn't it reflect the "GENEROSITY" of their communities VS the commuinities that have more to give?


And I am so happy to be having this discussion in here.....

 

[diamond]

dread wins again
handsomely so
and
with
astonishing
style.

 

[Kristie]

Someone mentioned tithing... Does "giving to charity" in this case include money given to churches? I'm wondering if these results aren't due to the states at the top being more religous than the states at the bottom, and thus giving lots of their money to their church like good churchgoers. I'd be interested in seeing a similar ranking that excludes churches and only includes charities that are non-religious affiliated... or, conversely, one that only includes religous institutions.