election map

"Dave LaCourse" wrote in message
...
Heard today that the blue states are the least likely states to give to
charities. The #1 state, most generous that is, is Mississippi. The
least
generous? NY, VT, MA, and CT.

Source?

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...
charities. The #1 state, most generous that is, is Mississippi. The
least
generous? NY, VT, MA, and CT.

Source?

http://www.afpnet.org/tier3_print.cf...tem_id=144 31

"Wayne Knight" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...
charities. The #1 state, most generous that is, is Mississippi. The
least
generous? NY, VT, MA, and CT.

Source?

http://www.afpnet.org/tier3_print.cf...tem_id=144 31

Very interesting. Pity they didn't give the rankings of all the states.

Thanks.

Wolfgang

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:20:05 -0500, "Wayne Knight"
wrote:


"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...
charities. The #1 state, most generous that is, is Mississippi. The
least
generous? NY, VT, MA, and CT.

Source?

http://www.afpnet.org/tier3_print.cf...tem_id=144 31



As I suspected, the poor states, having relatively lower populations
and low mean icomes, are distorted by the donations of the high income
earners in those states. This site has the answer in it's
spreadsheets of over $200K and all returns. The high income earners
in these poor states are amongst the largest givers. That has a
disporpotionate effect vs. wealthy states. In high income states, the
largest earners don't have the same distorting effects. Too bad they
don't have a spreadsheet for the under $200K returns as that would be
far more meaningful.

It's the problem when mean is used to produce an index like this.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

"Peter Charles" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 20:20:05 -0500, "Wayne Knight"
wrote:


"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...
charities. The #1 state, most generous that is, is Mississippi. The
least
generous? NY, VT, MA, and CT.

Source?

http://www.afpnet.org/tier3_print.cf...tem_id=144 31



As I suspected, the poor states, having relatively lower populations
and low mean icomes, are distorted by the donations of the high income
earners in those states. This site has the answer in it's
spreadsheets of over $200K and all returns. The high income earners
in these poor states are amongst the largest givers. That has a
disporpotionate effect vs. wealthy states. In high income states, the
largest earners don't have the same distorting effects. Too bad they
don't have a spreadsheet for the under $200K returns as that would be
far more meaningful.

It's the problem when mean is used to produce an index like this.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at
http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

Or it could be another dynamic at work.... poor folk, knowing what it feels
like to be poor, have a stronger motivation to give.

On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 02:23:14 GMT, "Doc Elder"
wrote:


"


As I suspected, the poor states, having relatively lower populations
and low mean icomes, are distorted by the donations of the high income
earners in those states. This site has the answer in it's
spreadsheets of over $200K and all returns. The high income earners
in these poor states are amongst the largest givers. That has a
disporpotionate effect vs. wealthy states. In high income states, the
largest earners don't have the same distorting effects. Too bad they
don't have a spreadsheet for the under $200K returns as that would be
far more meaningful.

It's the problem when mean is used to produce an index like this.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at
http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

Or it could be another dynamic at work.... poor folk, knowing what it feels
like to be poor, have a stronger motivation to give.

Oh you could be right, the problem is, the data provided doesn't tell
you which is which. If they had provided the median level of
donations, the picture might be the same or very different. In
lightly populated, poor state, a single, big donation could seriously
distort the average for that state.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

"Peter Charles" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004 02:23:14 GMT, "Doc Elder"
wrote:


"


As I suspected, the poor states, having relatively lower populations
and low mean icomes, are distorted by the donations of the high income
earners in those states. This site has the answer in it's
spreadsheets of over $200K and all returns. The high income earners
in these poor states are amongst the largest givers. That has a
disporpotionate effect vs. wealthy states. In high income states, the
largest earners don't have the same distorting effects. Too bad they
don't have a spreadsheet for the under $200K returns as that would be
far more meaningful.

It's the problem when mean is used to produce an index like this.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at
http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html

Or it could be another dynamic at work.... poor folk, knowing what it
feels
like to be poor, have a stronger motivation to give.

Oh you could be right, the problem is, the data provided doesn't tell
you which is which. If they had provided the median level of
donations, the picture might be the same or very different. In
lightly populated, poor state, a single, big donation could seriously
distort the average for that state.


Well, I know this is a day late and a dollar short, but I'm not going to
read through all this post. However, has anyone considered whether ot not
church donations are part of this dataset? If so, that might explain the
distribution of the data...

--riverman

"riverman" wrote in message
...

Well, I know this is a day late and a dollar short, but I'm not going to
read through all this post. However, has anyone considered whether ot not
church donations are part of this dataset?

Maybe you should have read through all the posts

Peter writes:

As I suspected, the poor states, having relatively lower populations
and low mean icomes, are distorted by the donations of the high income
earners in those states.

snip

Well, I can tell you this much, Peter. MA is right up there with being the
least generous, and Kerry leads in the "stingy factor". In the late 90s, with
an income of well over $300k/year, the hero gave a whopping $300 to charity.
Source? The Boston Globe. He was also caught driving a free car ("Ooops, I
forgot to make the payments this past year."), and was living free in a
friend's BH apartment. With "wealthy" like the hero, it is no wonder that MA
was near the bottom in generousity.

On 11 Nov 2004 02:27:20 GMT, irate (Dave LaCourse)
wrote:

Peter writes:

As I suspected, the poor states, having relatively lower populations
and low mean icomes, are distorted by the donations of the high income
earners in those states.

snip

Well, I can tell you this much, Peter. MA is right up there with being the
least generous, and Kerry leads in the "stingy factor". In the late 90s, with
an income of well over $300k/year, the hero gave a whopping $300 to charity.
Source? The Boston Globe. He was also caught driving a free car ("Ooops, I
forgot to make the payments this past year."), and was living free in a
friend's BH apartment. With "wealthy" like the hero, it is no wonder that MA
was near the bottom in generousity.


Maybe you're right and the high income earners in MA are all cheap
screws. That just distorts this all the more if the high income
earners in the poor states are big givers and the high income earners
in the wealthy sates are all cheap.

Trouble is Dave, the information provided with the high income earners
included, leaves questions. If they had removed the high income
earners, and also provided the medium donation level, then it we could
be a bit more certain that the average person in a poor state is
actually more generous.

The other problem occurs as to what qualifies as a donotion. Are
regular church donations considered tax deductible in the US? If so,
I'd expect states with larger percentages of church goers to have
higher numbers.

I'm not saying it's one way or the other, I'm just saying that with
this presentation of the data, it leaves the conclusions open to
question.

BTW, I thought Kerry was a twit when he ran in his first primary
(against Clinton IIRC). Couldn't believe the Dems picked him this
time around.

Peter

turn mailhot into hotmail to reply

Visit The Streamer Page at http://www.mountaincable.net/~pcharl...ers/index.html