Most Charitable States by "Red/Blue"

[JohnRich 4]

In the news:

The Generosity Index, compiled by The Catalogue For Philanthropy, is for real. It is computed by taking each state's average income and average charitable contribution, then subtracting the second rank from the first to get a single number for each state.

I've adapted the table to show the 2004 presidential election results, by state, ranked by generosity.

Source: Michelle Malkin

Notice how the large majority of "red" (Bush) states are near the top of the index (most generous), and most "blue" (Kerry) states are near the bottom (least generous)?

[markd_nscr986 0]

Looks like a lot of "misers" for neighbors in Colo.!
43rd in generosity! woohoo!

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[Morcyk 0]

I saw this same chart a couple weeks ago, but instead of generosity it was IQ.

[kallend 2,106]

If you look carefully you will notice a very strong inverse correlation with average income by state.

Which is not surprising, given the way in which this table was produced. It is mathematical NONSENSE to subtract rankings in this way.

Only someone completely innumerate would have thought of doing this.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Muenkel 0]

I have to agree with Kallend. If you want a valid listing, you would have to look at percentage of income.

I have to say this because I live in state #49.

_________________________________________
Chris

[JohnRich 4]

Re: "It is computed by taking each state's average income and average charitable contribution, then subtracting the second rank from the first to get a single number for each state."

Some accountant will bring this up sooner or later, so I'll go ahead and say something.

The formula for ranking doesn't appear to judge actual per capita dollar amounts. Rather, it judges based upon the amount given, relative to the amount of income. Thus, someone in Mississippi who only makes $20,000 per year and donates $100, gets more credit for being charitable, than someone from Massachusetts making $80,000 per year, who donated $200. In this example, the person from Mississippi is deemed to be twice as charitable as the person from Massachusetts.

And that reminds me of the Biblical story of the "widow's mite". A "mite" was an ancient coin equivalent to our penny - the smallest denomination available.

Quote: And he looked up, and saw the rich men that were casting their gifts into the treasury. And he saw a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites. And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, This poor widow cast in more than they all: for all these did of their superfluity cast in unto the gifts; but she of her want did cast in all the living that she had.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

I have to agree with Kallend. .

Sometimes the unlikeliest things just happen anyway

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I saw this same chart a couple weeks ago, but instead of generosity it was IQ.

That chart, which purported to show people in the red states to be more stupid than the blue states, was a hoax created by Howard Stern.

[Morcyk 0]

Ahh. I just figured both charts were hoaxes cause I knew the IQ one was a hoax.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Re: "It is computed by taking each state's average income and average charitable contribution, then subtracting the second rank from the first to get a single number for each state."

Some accountant will bring this up sooner or later, so I'll go ahead and say something.

The formula for ranking doesn't appear to judge actual per capita dollar amounts. Rather, it judges based upon the amount given, relative to the amount of income. Thus, someone in Mississippi who only makes $20,000 per year and donates $100, gets more credit for being charitable, than someone from Massachusetts making $80,000 per year, who donated $200. In this example, the person from Mississippi is deemed to be twice as charitable as the person from Massachusetts.

Wrong.

Taking the ratio of amounts would give the answer you suggest. But this purported index takes the difference in rank, an altogether meaningless procedure.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,534]

I went to their site. The way they come to a charitable contribution number is to take the one from itemized income tax returns. However, the income is from all income tax returns. So it will definitely be biased in favor of states with smaller overall incomes.

If overall a larger percentage of people from a given state itemizes, and it's not for charitable giving purposes, that will also bias the numbers.

A little more, from The Great North

Quote

COMPARING THE STATES It is often difficult to compare levels of charitable giving by individuals in different states using tax return data because there are wide disparities in the percentages of filers that itemize. For example, comparisons between states like Maryland, where 48 percent of all tax returns are itemized, and South Dakota, where 17 percent of all tax returns are itemized, would probably provide limited information. Moreover, states vary widely in average income per resident. In 2001, Connecticut’s adjusted gross income per return filed was the highest among the states at over $68,000, whereas Mississippi’s AGI was the lowest at around $33,600. The national average was just over $46,900. Therefore, when average giving is examined, giving as a percentage of income should be considered in addition to the total amount given.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

I went to their site. The way they come to a charitable contribution number is to take the one from itemized income tax returns. However, the income is from all income tax returns. So it will definitely be biased in favor of states with smaller overall incomes.

If overall a larger percentage of people from a given state itemizes, and it's not for charitable giving purposes, that will also bias the numbers.

Wendy W.

It really doesn't matter very much how they find the raw numbers. The final index is about as meaningful as ranking the states by their area, then by their perimeter, and subtracting one from the other. You end up with a number, but what does it mean?

Just because you can enter numbers and formulas in a spreadsheet doesn't guarantee that the output has any value.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,534]

Yes, but, well, I did some more digging. Their methodology sucks, but if you look at some raw data (I got it from the IRS, and one from The Great North, above, which already shows only the income within ranges and the charitable contributions -- very easy that way).

Apparently they took returns in 3 income classifications (75-100,000, 100-200,000, and 200,000+) so that comparisons are apples to apples. They did include the percentage of folks that filed itemized returns. Not surprisingly, it was a majority in most cases.

I did some quick calculations (I love Excel), and while the numbers come out different, and the order is not quite the same, the basic premise holds -- there are a lot more high-giving red than blue states, even when ordered by percent giving within these income ranges.

Utah is the highest giver in two of the three categories; Wyoming in the third. Obviously in the case of Wyoming, one really big giver can make a difference (low overall population), but still...

Data is data.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[PhreeZone 20]

Quote

Utah is the highest giver in two of the three categories; Wyoming in the third. Obviously in the case of Wyoming, one really big giver can make a difference (low overall population), but still...

Utah totally scews its numbers since such a large population of the state are members of the Church of Latter Day Saints and they are expected to give certian % just to remain in the the good favor of the community. When 30%+ of a state gives 30% of their income to the church and writes it their taxes it raises the numbers a lot.

Yesterday is history
And tomorrow is a mystery

Parachutemanuals.com

[billvon 3,070]

This red/blue state thing is pretty dumb.

Take a DZ party; put 51 democrats and 50 republicans in a hangar and add beer. You now have a "blue" DZ party. Does that mean everyone's going to talk about increasing taxes on the rich? Now add 2 republicans to make it a 'red' party. Will everyone start in on how excellent the war in Iraq is? Now add 2 democrats. Will that discussion do a screeching 180, now that it's a "blue" party again?

The red/blue thing is as silly as categorizing all DZ's as either 'freefly' or 'RW', and saying things like "all freefly DZ's have horrible student programs because freeflyers can't fly on their bellies." As generalizations go, it's one of the stupidest ones around.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Utah totally scews its numbers since such a large population of the state are members of the Church of Latter Day Saints and they are expected to give certian % just to remain in the the good favor of the community. When 30%+ of a state gives 30% of their income to the church and writes it their taxes it raises the numbers a lot.

I believe 10% is the norm for the Mormons. But yes, this likely explains why the red states could the more charitable givers in a more useful evaluation. Giving to your church counts, though really shouldn't count the same as giving to a charity in which you don't receive benefits in return.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Utah is the highest giver in two of the three categories; Wyoming in the third. Obviously in the case of Wyoming, one really big giver can make a difference (low overall population), but still...

Utah totally scews its numbers since such a large population of the state are members of the Church of Latter Day Saints and they are expected to give certian % just to remain in the the good favor of the community. When 30%+ of a state gives 30% of their income to the church and writes it their taxes it raises the numbers a lot.

And big city apartment dwellers are less likely to itemize (no mortgage deduction) so they wouldn't show up either.

Very sloppy methodology.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

This red/blue state thing is pretty dumb.

Take a DZ party; put 51 democrats and 50 republicans in a hangar and add beer. You now have a "blue" DZ party. Does that mean everyone's going to talk about increasing taxes on the rich? Now add 2 republicans to make it a 'red' party. Will everyone start in on how excellent the war in Iraq is? Now add 2 democrats. Will that discussion do a screeching 180, now that it's a "blue" party again?

The red/blue thing is as silly as categorizing all DZ's as either 'freefly' or 'RW', and saying things like "all freefly DZ's have horrible student programs because freeflyers can't fly on their bellies." As generalizations go, it's one of the stupidest ones around.

You mean like this?

[Muenkel 0]

Quote

And that reminds me of the Biblical story of the "widow's mite". A "mite" was an ancient coin equivalent to our penny - the smallest denomination available.

The parable of the 'Widow's Mite' just makes my point. It's about the percentage of a person's income.

And Kallend, when you're right, I will admit it. In this case you're correct.

_________________________________________
Chris

[mnealtx 0]

Without reading the backstory, I imagine a fair bit of it is from tithing. And, since the red states seem to be more religious that could very well be a contributing factor.

Just my $.02...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[MC208B 0]

Damn, that was another good onewhere do you get all this stuff?

[penniless 0]

Quote

Quote

This red/blue state thing is pretty dumb.

Take a DZ party; put 51 democrats and 50 republicans in a hangar and add beer. You now have a "blue" DZ party. Does that mean everyone's going to talk about increasing taxes on the rich? Now add 2 republicans to make it a 'red' party. Will everyone start in on how excellent the war in Iraq is? Now add 2 democrats. Will that discussion do a screeching 180, now that it's a "blue" party again?

The red/blue thing is as silly as categorizing all DZ's as either 'freefly' or 'RW', and saying things like "all freefly DZ's have horrible student programs because freeflyers can't fly on their bellies." As generalizations go, it's one of the stupidest ones around.

You mean like this?

Nope, the guys on the right are just freeflyers.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

This red/blue state thing is pretty dumb.

Take a DZ party; put 51 democrats and 50 republicans in a hangar and add beer. You now have a "blue" DZ party. Does that mean everyone's going to talk about increasing taxes on the rich? Now add 2 republicans to make it a 'red' party. Will everyone start in on how excellent the war in Iraq is? Now add 2 democrats. Will that discussion do a screeching 180, now that it's a "blue" party again?

The red/blue thing is as silly as categorizing all DZ's as either 'freefly' or 'RW', and saying things like "all freefly DZ's have horrible student programs because freeflyers can't fly on their bellies." As generalizations go, it's one of the stupidest ones around.

You mean like this?

Nope, the guys on the right are just freeflyers.

I think it rather offensive to troops like my (Illinois) son, sergeant, US Army.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Jayruss 0]

Please they used Tax Returns!!! Who's honest on those?

__________________________________________________
"Beware how you take away hope from another human being."
-Oliver Wendell Holmes

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

In the news:

The Generosity Index, compiled by The Catalogue For Philanthropy, is for real. It is computed by taking each state's average income and average charitable contribution, then subtracting the second rank from the first to get a single number for each state.

I've adapted the table to show the 2004 presidential election results, by state, ranked by generosity.

Source: Michelle Malkin

Notice how the large majority of "red" (Bush) states are near the top of the index (most generous), and most "blue" (Kerry) states are near the bottom (least generous)?

Hmmmmmmmmm, and which, "charities" are we talking here??????? Could it be.... the church? Uh, ya.... This is so abstract that it's nonsense.