NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2005

Take a look at the list, and draw your own conclusions.

I live in Alabma, they are, for the most part, as generous as an old sock. Unless giving by proxy counts, the amount of money these people turn over to their respective churches is asinine.

Huh... so how's that in international comparisson?

I live in Alabma, they are, for the most part, as generous as an old sock. Unless giving by proxy counts, the amount of money these people turn over to their respective churches is asinine.

The study uses IRS data.

The study uses IRS data.
Which doesn't explain anything.

Which doesn't explain anything.Though it does seem to hold more water than your baseless, no-evidence claim.

Makes sense. The people that have nothing have nothing because they are giving it away. Really though, if one has nothing, one can afford to give it away.

Though it does seem to hold more water than your baseless, no-evidence claim.
No, it doesn't because it doesn't explain anything. What IRS data? How was it collected, hell, what the hell was it based on?

No, it doesn't because it doesn't explain anything. What IRS data? How was it collected, hell, what the hell was it based on?

Well, all I saw was ranking; what is it based on, raw numbers of x number of dollars per-person, the amount given as a percentage of income - giving to charities that are recognised by the IRS?

Like another person said, giving via proxy, in terms it tithes being paid to churches? I mean, there is a difference between donating and another getting taxed by the church that one attends - something would hardly called 'voluntary donations'.

What a bunch of sour puss crocodiles, crying all your fake tears for every cause in the world, but then when someone else is more generous than you all are you puke petty condemnation on it...

You all take every possible chance you can to slam the southern state Americans, by calling them hicks, or accusing them of wholesale incest as a social institution and claiming them all to be non-educated rubes and hypocrites, and then someone points out that they are generous and they disproportionately give to charity groups and here you all sit, trying to think of ways to dismiss that fact so you can continue to claim they are the scum of the earth.


Well I think I know who the scum are, and it isn't the poor but generous southerners...

Frequently Asked Questions

Here are some frequently asked questions to the Catalogue for Philanthropy about the Generosity Index, and their answers. If you cannot find what you are looking for, please email Anne Taylor.

1. What methodology is used in the creation of the Generosity Index?

Using published data of individual tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service, we compare 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.

Each year, the IRS makes available data from two years ago; thus the 2004 Generosity Index reflects IRS data from 2002.

We use IRS data because, although crude, it is telling and the best data available on a regular basis for understanding how charitable giving relates to income. In using this data, we accept the federal government's definitions of what charitable giving is, and that includes giving to religious groups, churches and many other institutions.

You may download the Excel file that we have created to formulate the Generosity Index (on our website). Please note that there are separate worksheets within the Excel file (you can click on the different sheets along the bottom), which reflect the data according to various income levels: $75K-$100K, $100K-$200K, $200K+ and All Returns.

For further information and examples of how the Index is compiled, please refer to Technical Notes on our website.

2. Do you provide analysis on the Generosity Index rankings?

We intentionally do not provide comment, analysis or interpretation of what the IRS has reported annually about the nation's personal income tax returns. We provide the relevant numbers on income and charitable deductions, and leave interpretation to others — in most cases, the media. We do not always agree with their interpretations, but we believe, on the basis of evidence, that all discussions of charitable giving are good, because they get people to think about philanthropy and in particular about their own charitable giving. We have found that this consideration increases giving, which is our purpose.

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.

4. What is the Catalogue for Philanthropy?

We are a charitable organization sponsored by individual donors, foundations and corporations, whose support helps us to fulfil our mission: donor education. Through an annual Catalogue published each November, we provide support to small charities with operating budgets of $2 million or less. Each year, the Catalogue features 65-70 charities and provides evidence of their excellence. It is then mailed to wealthy individuals, encouraging them as potential donors to think creatively about their charitable giving.

We have Catalogues in Massachusetts, Washington DC and St Louis, with plans to start Catalogues in Los Angeles and Australia.

From the FAQ.

The Generosity Index - 2005

The story on charitable giving nationwide in 2003 (the latest IRS numbers) is good news; income rose by 2.6%, while charitable giving rose by much more — 7.2%, the highest rate of increase since 1998-99. It is possible that donors wanted to compensate for reduced giving in the previous two years, caused by Sept. 11 and the recession.

In Massachusetts, where those disruptions hit especially hard, income rose by slightly more — 2.8% — while giving rose by slightly less — 6.2%. We are pleased to report that the unprecedented gains in Massachusetts’ charitable giving from 1997-2000 — when in only four years we doubled our annual giving from $2 billion to $4 billion, the fastest-growing rate in the nation — were not erased in the downturn. In 2003 we were not back up to the 2000 level, but headed in that direction and possibly reaching it in 2004 or 2005.

How the Generosity Index works

The 2005 Generosity Index (GI), using 2003 IRS data, is located here at our website:
www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2005. The word “Index” means “indication,” in accordance with its Latin root; the GI does not measure or compare philanthropic generosity as such, much less moral character of states or their populations. It merely reports IRS numbers, from annual summaries of personal income tax returns — Average Adjusted Gross Income (AAGI in MA: $58,408 in 2003) and Average Itemized Charitable Deductions (AICD in MA: $3,122). We use the IRS numbers not because they are ideal for the purpose, but because they are the only data frequently and freely available that include both income and charitable giving (ICDs capture about 80% of all personal giving). We invoke both giving and income because philanthropic generosity is not how much one gives, but how much one gives in relation to how much one has.

We then rank the two for each state (in 2003, MA was 3rd in AAGI, 39th in AICD), compare the ranks (MA: minus 36), and rank those differences (MA: 49th). We do this to illuminate a fact: that nationwide, giving is not consistently related to income; rather, giving is shaped more by cultures, which tend to be regional, and by religion (not politics). If all Americans were equally "generous" (in relating giving to income), those differences in rank would be zero — all states would be giving at the same rank as their income. But the Bible Belt and Utah are, with generally low incomes, giving so much (as tithing evangelical Protestants), that in effect they set a high example, which suggests that the wealthiest taxpayers in the wealthy states can afford to give significantly more.

This explains why in 2003 the top income group in Wyoming, which ranked 1st in both income and giving, ranked 26th on the GI for the zero disparity between those ranks; South Carolina’s top income group ranked first on the GI because from their low income — 44th — they gave enough to rank 27th in giving—the largest positive disparity (+17) in the nation. The GI is thus, because it ranks disparity, a system which gravitates toward the middle, not the top; if wealthier states’ giving increases toward their rank in income, poorer states’ giving ranks will necessarily approach their low income ranks; disparities between them will shrink toward zero — and the nation’s total charitable giving will increase substantially.

The Catalogue Welcomes New Study

Incidentally, the Catalogue welcomes the news that the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College will conduct, with Boston Foundation funding, a thorough scientific study of charitable giving in relation to wealth in Greater Boston, Massachusetts, and New England, all in comparison with other regions of the country. Since 1997 when we first introduced the Generosity Index as, in our words, “crude but telling,” not as science but only as information for public-awareness purposes, a summary of the best available data on giving in relation to income, we have repeatedly called upon the academic community to provide better numbers — the rigorous data and analysis philanthropy needs. We therefore await the results of the BC study with great interest and grateful enthusiasm.

How it works.

What a bunch of sour puss crocodiles,
<snip>
Well I think I know who the scum are, and it isn't the poor but generous southerners...


Is it just me? Or did nobody see anyone calling names until this came along?


That being said, the issue of the custom of tithing could be seen to be making a difference. If such tithes are tax-deductible then they would be included as charity in the IRS, and if there is a marked difference in the costs of church membership between the North and South then this does represent a change.

Church tithes, after all, are not considered by parishiners to be charity in exactly the same sense as other offerings (for example donations to the Red Cross) as it goes to supporting maintainence and improvement of church properties and programs, and often some missionary work as well.

Still, it is an interesting report. I'm not sure exactly if it means a whole lot as in times of need American's are, by and large, a very generous people - no matter what part of the country they come from.

What a bunch of sour puss crocodiles, crying all your fake tears for every cause in the world, but then when someone else is more generous than you all are you puke petty condemnation on it...

You all take every possible chance you can to slam the southern state Americans, by calling them hicks, or accusing them of wholesale incest as a social institution and claiming them all to be non-educated rubes and hypocrites, and then someone points out that they are generous and they disproportionately give to charity groups and here you all sit, trying to think of ways to dismiss that fact so you can continue to claim they are the scum of the earth.


Well I think I know who the scum are, and it isn't the poor but generous southerners...

You didn't seem to understand my last warning to you. Knock off the attacks, NOW.

makes sense, sort of:

a)Democrats believe in the tax... in the poor depending on the government's arbitrarily-collected and -dispensed money.

b)Republicans believe in personal charitable giving. Give to a cause and let that cause help the poor as opposed to sending your money blindly to the government, where you have almost zero (or far lesser) chance to directly impact a disadvantaged person's life.

Doesn;t really suprise me. I would say, from my own personal experience, that religious people tend to be more charitible than non-religious people.

makes sense, sort of:

a)Democrats believe in the tax... in the poor depending on the government's arbitrarily-collected and -dispensed money.

b)Republicans believe in personal charitable giving. Give to a cause and let that cause help the poor as opposed to sending your money blindly to the government, where you have almost zero (or far lesser) chance to directly impact a disadvantaged person's life.
How can you have a less then 0 probability?

Doesn;t really suprise me. I would say, from my own personal experience, that religious people tend to be more charitible than non-religious people.

I can't say that I've noticed any such correlation. Oddly enough, I WOULD suggest that the most charitable people I've met are those who have suffered through more personal adversity and/or poverty as they have a better empathy for those in similar situations. As such, the lower general income level of the south is as likely a determining factor as anything.

People with lots of money give both out of a disire to as well as for the tax breaks.

Poor people understand better how much easier things can be for all if they help each other out.

Those who tend to be the least charitable in my (completely unscientific) observation? The second generation middle class. They don't have the level of empathy having never experienced poverty, and are struggling paycheque to paycheque to keep up, to replace that minivan, get their kids all of the designer crap they keep whining for, and saving for the college fund (we can argue how much consumerism plays into this elsewhere).

I can't say that I've noticed any such correlation. Oddly enough, I WOULD suggest that the most charitable people I've met are those who have suffered through more personal adversity and/or poverty as they have a better empathy for those in similar situations. As such, the lower general income level of the south is as likely a determining factor as anything.

People with lots of money give both out of a disire to as well as for the tax breaks.

Poor people understand better how much easier things can be for all if they help each other out.

Those who tend to be the least charitable in my (completely unscientific) observation? The second generation middle class. They don't have the level of empathy having never experienced poverty, and are struggling paycheque to paycheque to keep up, to replace that minivan, get their kids all of the designer crap they keep whining for, and saving for the college fund (we can argue how much consumerism plays into this elsewhere).

Good point I have seen much of the same thing ... a prime example of the good old saying "corralation does not prove causation"

Not to mention the OP did not compute the significance of religion on the curve

Doesn't surprise me. It's like how many people drive good when cops are around. I guess believing that there's a big, powerful(he created everything. He can blow up the earth just by looking at it.) guy watching you and demanding that you be good would be enough to make one try to make Jesus and Buddha look like rich, selfish cows. That and the whole "be good now and you'll be rewarded forever after you die" thing.

This study could also show that the bible belters just lie on their taxes more (it certainly is plausible). If that isn't the case then good for them for being the most generous.

b)Republicans believe in personal charitable giving. Give to a cause and let that cause help the poor as opposed to sending your money blindly to the government, where you have almost zero (or far lesser) chance to directly impact a disadvantaged person's life.
The Republicans believe too much in the kindess of humanity, or give the appearance that is what they believe in. I believe that there would be alot higher cost of living in the Bible Belt if the churches wern't taking everyone's money every service.

that religious people tend to be more charitible than non-religious people.
Or that giving to churches is counted in this study.

If donations to churches during services are being counted, I want all that data removed and only data counted that counts as independent donation. Giving to church drives that you are not a member of, donating to the Salvation Army, etc. Of course, that would take real, in-depth research.

This study could also show that the bible belters just lie on their taxes more (it certainly is plausible). If that isn't the case then good for them for being the most generous.
Exactly ... to find a region that has a statistical difference in reported charity giving and randomly atribute it to a singular cause is silly

What is the confidence level of a value added last liniar regression
Think of all the predictors could be there

Religion (or lack thereof)
Economic Status (or lack thereof)
Family upbringing (or lack thereof)
Average age
Average schooling
Type of schooling
Family history (as uposed to direct upbringing)
Tax-reporting and claming
Types of charity standard (for example monitary vs food ... clothing)

I hardly see enough data here to give us an Idea of how good of a predictor Religion alone is

Well, and the other issue is that the methodology to the rankings seem horribly flawed by the simplistic criteria used: ranking in average per-capita income minus ranking in average per-capita donation.

Unless you were to factor in living costs it becomes meaningless as people in a marginally higher income state might have significantly less disposable income if their housing costs and state taxes are sufficiently higher and so be donating an equivalent percentage of disposable income but be pushed far down the ranks.

Indeed, they dismiss that notion with the statement:


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.


Which, frankly, I'm not sure that I agree with. But even if you DID agree with that notion, it would seem then that income distribution per state would need to be factored in to normalize the data, but that isn't done either.

Indeed, I can't see how this report holds any meaningful insight at all.

Well, and the other issue is that the methodology to the rankings seem horribly flawed by the simplistic criteria used: ranking in average per-capita income minus ranking in average per-capita donation.

Unless you were to factor in living costs it becomes meaningless as people in a marginally higher income state might have significantly less disposable income if their housing costs and state taxes are sufficiently higher and so be donating an equivalent percentage of disposable income but be pushed far down the ranks.

Indeed, they dismiss that notion with the statement:



Which, frankly, I'm not sure that I agree with. But even if you DID agree with that notion, it would seem then that income distribution per state would need to be factored in to normalize the data, but that isn't done either.

Indeed, I can't see how this report holds any meaningful insight at all.
Never thought about that as well ... incomes vs disposable incomes

Living costs
and such

Intresting

Using IRS charitable donation records misses (at least) four important types of charity:

1. Volunteer hours

2. Donating items (as opposed to money). For example, food drives, clothing drives, giving useful things you don't use anymore to charity shops, etc.

3. Charitable raffles. (At least in Canada, if there is a chance you will win something it's considered a lottery and thus you can't claim it on your tax return.) For example, $100 Children's Hospital Foundation raffle tickets. A lot of big city hospitals fund expensive new equipment through these drives.

4. Church/Religious tithes. If you donate your money through the collection plate or box or some other anonymous method, you won't get a tax receipt.

By the way, I'm not claiming that red or blue states do more of any of these things, I'm just saying that this data is absent from IRS records (unless the IRS is really, really different than Revenue Canada and does somehow track this, but I can't imagine how).

By the way, I'm not claiming that red or blue states do more of any of these things, I'm just saying that this data is absent from IRS records (unless the IRS is really, really different than Revenue Canada and does somehow track this, but I can't imagine how).
The IRS is like Santa - it knows when you are sleeping, it knows when you are awake, and it knows when you evade your taxes.

The study uses IRS data.

Meaning it's measuring who claims the most charitable tax deductions... not necessarily who is actually giving the most to charity.

It would seem to me truly charitable people wouldn't be worrying about getting compensated by the IRS for it. I've never claimed a personal charitable contribution in my life, and I'd feel a little dirty if I did quite honestly.

Meaning it's measuring who claims the most charitable tax deductions... not necessarily who is actually giving the most to charity.

It would seem to me truly charitable people wouldn't be worrying about getting compensated by the IRS for it. I've never claimed a personal charitable contribution in my life, and I'd feel a little dirty if I did quite honestly.
If anything, those in the Bible Belt know the ins and outs of tax deducation.

What a bunch of sour puss crocodiles, crying all your fake tears for every cause in the world, but then when someone else is more generous than you all are you puke petty condemnation on it...

You all take every possible chance you can to slam the southern state Americans, by calling them hicks, or accusing them of wholesale incest as a social institution and claiming them all to be non-educated rubes and hypocrites, and then someone points out that they are generous and they disproportionately give to charity groups and here you all sit, trying to think of ways to dismiss that fact so you can continue to claim they are the scum of the earth.

Well I think I know who the scum are, and it isn't the poor but generous southerners...
Yeah, damn those bleeding-heart liberal southerners!.. oh wait.

Why so venomous?

makes sense, sort of:

a)Democrats believe in the tax... in the poor depending on the government's arbitrarily-collected and -dispensed money.

b)Republicans believe in personal charitable giving. Give to a cause and let that cause help the poor as opposed to sending your money blindly to the government, where you have almost zero (or far lesser) chance to directly impact a disadvantaged person's life.
This is not true at all. The two parties are so similar, they're the Republicrats. They both tax income and give it to people who didn't earn it.

Makes sense. The people that have nothing have nothing because they are giving it away. Really though, if one has nothing, one can afford to give it away.
I think the implication goes way deeper than that. It seems that those who have little tend to be more compassionate than those who have much, and tend to give to charities moreso than to the arts. Those who have much tend to give to those causes which have most relevance to their own lives, and thus to the arts, museums, etc. Those who have much also tend to feel as though they rose to their current positions by merit, and thus tend to be less sympathetic to those with little.

Those who have much also tend to feel as though they rose to their current positions by merit, and thus tend to be less sympathetic to those with little.
Which would only be more ironic if Corneliu had said it.

I think the implication goes way deeper than that. It seems that those who have little tend to be more compassionate than those who have much, and tend to give to charities moreso than to the arts. Those who have much tend to give to those causes which have most relevance to their own lives, and thus to the arts, museums, etc. Those who have much also tend to feel as though they rose to their current positions by merit, and thus tend to be less sympathetic to those with little.
Maybe ... it could also be any of thoes other predictors that I listed ... but due to the horrible data provided by the origional post there is no way for me to find the significance of each of them

How can you have a less then 0 probability?

hmmm, that's not what i said. i'll try a different wording:

original:
Republicans believe in personal charitable giving. Give to a cause and let that cause help the poor as opposed to sending your money blindly to the government, where you have almost zero (or far lesser) chance to directly impact a disadvantaged person's life.

edited to show meaning:
Republicans believe in personal charitable giving. Give to a cause and let that cause help the poor as opposed to sending your money blindly to the government, where you have almost zero (or far less of a chance than if you donated to a specific charitable organization) chance to directly impact a disadvantaged person's life.

hmmm, that's not what i said. i'll try a different wording:

original:
Republicans believe in personal charitable giving. Give to a cause and let that cause help the poor as opposed to sending your money blindly to the government, where you have almost zero (or far lesser) chance to directly impact a disadvantaged person's life.

edited to show meaning:
Republicans believe in personal charitable giving. Give to a cause and let that cause help the poor as opposed to sending your money blindly to the government, where you have almost zero (or far less of a chance than if you donated to a specific charitable organization) chance to directly impact a disadvantaged person's life.
Ahh I took it to mean zero or lesser lol I was confused

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p526/ar02.html#d0e491
*head spinning* Never try to read IRS tax codes!

But, it does seem that most giving to churches would be countable under charitable deductions.

And the IRS has some strange ideas about what counts as an acceptable deduction (The American Red Cross is fine, but if I'm reading correctly, the International Red Cross is not. Does that mean that all monies given for the tsunami were not deductable?)

But I could be wrong, I am in no way a tax lawyer.

One reason that the bible belt has more charity when compared to income due to the fact that they have very little in the way of taxes, and affiliation with and funding towards churches is counted under charity, though a church is hardly a civil service... *waits to get hit with a Bible*

If they don't give to charity, their schools, police, firefighting services, social workers, etc., will all suffer.

I live in good old Massachusetts. The reason we don't really give much in the way of charity is because most of our services are paid at least somewhat adequately by taxes. Except for school lunch... that always has and always will suck.

Doesn;t really suprise me. I would say, from my own personal experience, that religious people tend to be more charitible than non-religious people.

Sorry, I would rather donate my time, which is alot more valuable than any money I can donate; its all very nice giving money, but if there aren't the people there to implement the programmes, the money is pretty much useless.

As for what I donate to; RSPCA - yes, thats right, I have a soft spot for animals :)

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p526/ar02.html#d0e491
*head spinning* Never try to read IRS tax codes!

But, it does seem that most giving to churches would be countable under charitable deductions.

And the IRS has some strange ideas about what counts as an acceptable deduction (The American Red Cross is fine, but if I'm reading correctly, the International Red Cross is not. Does that mean that all monies given for the tsunami were not deductable?)

But I could be wrong, I am in no way a tax lawyer.


Yes, much of tithing is deemed a charitable donation for tax purposes. My issue with comparing this to many other forms of giving is actually in the end-use. Which is more charitable? The person who donates $100/month to the church of which a good chunk goes help fund a fancy new marble Jesus in the fancy new Sunday School? Or the person who gives $50/month directly to a soup kitchen?

Which isn't to say that church funds don't also go to helping the community, because of course they do. But I've also been through a lot of piss-poor towns with some pretty ornate houses of worship. So direct comparisons of contributions based only on dollar amounts are somewhat suspect.

By the time they refuse to factor in:
Cost of living differences (even if they just factored in housing costs)
State tax differences.
Income distribution differences.
Types of donations (tithe vs voluntary).
Non-cash donations (volunteer hours).

It seems that this is a study so limited in scope as to be nothing more than a numeric curiosity by someone with no knowledge of statistical theory or demographics.

but hey! They know how to subtract!

Sorry, I would rather donate my time, which is alot more valuable than any money I can donate; its all very nice giving money, but if there aren't the people there to implement the programmes, the money is pretty much useless.

As for what I donate to; RSPCA - yes, thats right, I have a soft spot for animals :)

It cuts both ways though. Volunteers at a soup kitchen are of little use if there is no food to serve....

I used to volunteer my time. Now I have small children and support those who have the time to donate with the finances to be effective. And when the kids get a bit older I'll introduce them to volunteering to instill that in them.

So don't feel superior to your patrons. They might have been you, and someday you might be them.

makes sense, sort of:

a)Democrats believe in the tax... in the poor depending on the government's arbitrarily-collected and -dispensed money.

b)Republicans believe in personal charitable giving. Give to a cause and let that cause help the poor as opposed to sending your money blindly to the government, where you have almost zero (or far lesser) chance to directly impact a disadvantaged person's life.

So where's the President donating his money. Please, it's the Bible Belt, usually they money give to in charitable donations is for the church itself..... look how many gullible fucktards contribute to the "700 Club"

It cuts both ways though. Volunteers at a soup kitchen are of little use if there is no food to serve....

I used to volunteer my time. Now I have small children and support those who have the time to donate with the finances to be effective. And when the kids get a bit older I'll introduce them to volunteering to instill that in them.

So don't feel superior to your patrons. They might have been you, and someday you might be them.

Ah <pokes Silliopolous> where did I say I was superior to them? please don't make assumptions.

I never said I was superior, what I did say is its all very well boasting about those who donate heaps of money - thats the easy part; there needs to be a BALANCE between the two.