GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Charity? Thy Color is Red (State)

by

This is quite amusing, yet registered no surprise with me whatsoever. In fact, PatriotPartner and I discussed this topic in the weeks after Katrina. We speculated that Red Staters were more generous in their giving, and less selfish, than the more affluent and more liberal Blue States (especially California and New York).

Well, well, well….

The 2005 Generosity Index is out from the Catalogue for Philanthropy (h/t – Polipundit)

Turns out the states with the least amount to give are the ones that give the most. Topping the list are three of our poorest states in “having” but richest in “giving.”

Mississippi, Arkansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee

You have to get to #22 in the Generosity Index to find your first Blue State — New York.. all the way down at # 26.

Where are our the most affluent (and Blue-est) states of the USA in the Generosity Index?

Connecticut – 45th, New Jersey – 48th, Massachusetts – 49th, Maryland – 32nd, and New York – 26th.

When you ask me what I mean by “limosine liberals”…. this is what I mean. The same people that want to keep their private beaches to themselves and their ocean views without windmills for energy conservation. Do as I say, not as I do.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

UPDATE (from GPW): Not only are people in “red” states more generous, it seems that kids in California’s “red” counties are healthier. According to fellow Bear Flag blogger Craig DeLuz, a recent Golden State physical fitness report card found counties with the healthiest students are the most conservative politically.” Check it out here!

Comments

  2. 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:

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

    2. Having Rank: a ranking of the Average Adjusted Gross Income

    3. 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)

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

    5. Giving Rank: a ranking of the average donations

    6. Ranks Relation: Having Rank minus the Giving Rank

    7. 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.

  3. Cost of living in these states included?

    The measure of giving only gets at what is, in fact, reported.

    Given the cost of living in some states and differences in income, it is entirely possible that people give about the same level across states. In fact, the purpose of the index itself is:

    “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…”

    The index is constructed to say exactly what it wants to say. You should really be more careful with numbers and indexes if you sincerely wish to be taken seriously in your commentary, as it often seems at least Dan does.

  6. Well there is some justice after all…. with the horrible way the federal government treated the victims of Katrina, I am glad that the ones who “elected” the federal government are the ones who felt guilty enough to foot the bill…..

  7. First, it isn’t a poll. It is an index, a story in numbers.

    Second, when the story is fabricated and simple–how many variables are included?–it should be pointed out as such.

    Third, reading simple stories which purport to correspond with the world and not recognizing this is like understanding the world through children’s stories.

    Fourth, this (little) amount of data is open to quite a bit of interpretation. For example, one could easily make the claim–since there are so few variables in the index–that the red states have higher amounts of giving because they are suckered into passing their money on to “religious” groups that do not have the luxury of endowments and stock portfolios. Further, people in red states itemize and broadcast their giving in order to provide an outward display of their magnanimousness, not needed so much by a more staid, say, New England piety or a Catholic one as such. For example, I have never reported charitable giving because: one, there’s a line in the gospels about giving and not making a fuss of it; and two, I don’t mind being taxed a bit more for the greater good. That leads me to a third possible interpretation: HAHA!! They give all that money AND they get federal tax dollars shifted from blue states and they STILL don’t see higher standards of living, etc.!!

    But I won’t interpret the index in this way, because: one, the data don’t support any seriously debatable conclusions; two, there’s no reason to do so, except to take cheap, unsupported shots at people; and three, it takes a small mind to use an index like this to come to any substantive conclusions or interpretations or to use cheap interpretations to make shallow political jabs.

    All data must be scrutinized to make sure the story isn’t bullshit, whether that data is used to rip on red states or blue states. This might be how we can get beyond the “shrill” nonsense of pseudo-commentary on both left and right and start speaking like adult citizens concerned with the life of the nation as a whole.

  13. #7

    But I won’t interpret the index in this way, because….there’s no reason to do so, except to take cheap, unsupported shots at people

    Do you mean a cheap shot like this?

    That leads me to a third possible interpretation: HAHA!! They give all that money AND they get federal tax dollars shifted from blue states and they STILL don’t see higher standards of living

    As for the blue states supporting the red states, you may want to go beyond “reading simple stories which purport to correspond with the world”

    Here are the top ten states in per capita income:

    Connecticut
    New Jersey
    Massachusettes
    Maryland
    New York
    New Hampshire
    Minnesota
    Illinois
    Washington
    California

    Here are the top ten states who receive the least in federal spending compared to what they paid:

    New Jersey
    Connecticut
    New Hampshire
    Nevada
    Illinois
    Minnesota
    Colorado
    Massachusettes
    California
    New York

    From the The Tax Foundation

    The most important factor determining whether a state is a net beneficiary or not is per capita income. States with wealthier residents pay higher federal taxes per capita thanks to the progressive structure of the income tax.

    It is ironic that liberals use this as a way to bash the other side. This is the same income redistribution or “economic justice” that they are always promoting. They should be happy that the top 1% of taxpayers (rich Republicans?) pay over 33% of total federal taxes and hand it over to those less fortunate.

  15. with the horrible way the federal government treated the victims of Katrina,

    Please tell us about the horrible way the federal government treated the victims of Katrina. As an emergency management official and responder, I really want to know.
    I also want to know what your sources are and what, if any, experience you have in dealing with MCIs. I am genuinely interested.
    Since our leftist brethren are sooo compassionate and more educated, I hope that you won’t have any problems enlightening me, right?

    If you don’t have the balls to post it here, you can always contact me at

    TGCBlog@Gmail.com

    Oh, and for a little bit of trivia, did you know that FEMA USAR teams were in LA. while Katrina was still blitzing the MS. coast? Bet you didn’t. Your beloved and willing accomplices in the media don’t want you nor anybody else to know that. Don’t forget to include that information, that is, if you have the faintest idea what USAR means.

  18. I have always felt that our blue-state brethren (and champagne socialists) felt that actions did not speak louder than words. To the Kennedys, having “social equality” means being able to speak to your lawn boy in Spanish and letting the kitchen maid have the day off for Kwanzaa.

    Bunch of jerks.

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

  19. Typical Democratic number manipulation.

    Notice how Sally tries to argue absolute amounts when it comes to charitable giving, but then switches to poverty rates (notably without any referenceable link). Could that be because doing so distorts the size of the contributions made by individuals in the highly-populated states while minimizing the amount of poverty in those states?

    Of course. If you look at the state averages, the average Californian made $52k in adjusted gross income in 2003; the average Alabaman made just under $40k. However, the average Californian gave $3,764 in 2003, while the average Alabaman gave $4,555. In Arkansas, the difference is even more stark — the average income is barely over $36k, but the average gift was $4,890.

    Furthermore, I have always wondered what would happen if someone were to do a map based solely on party demographics, as opposed to using “red” or “blue” states. Wonder how Democrats would look if Cleveland or Atlanta, just to use two prominent examples, were counted as “blue” instead of being buried in “red” Ohio and Georgia? What I think would be seen is that areas in which poverty, drug use, crime, and other societal vices are endemic are overwhelmingly Democratic and have been so for decades.

    Also note this inane statement:

    As well, following the results of the 2004 election, “Red” states receive more total federal funding than “Blue” states despite the 3/5 majority of the “Red” states.

    What a surprise — red states, of which there are more, receive more total funding than blue states, of which there are fewer.