election map

Barnards writes:

http://www.selekta.com/map.jpg

What is your point, Barnard? Or do you have one.

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. Says a helluva lot more than a 100 year old
map.

Duh!

"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.

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.

"Peter Charles" wrote in message
...


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


Not claiming to be an expert on contributions and giving but I've been
taking a crash course in it so I can help lead a $2.5 million fund drive to
help rebuild a small community hospital in sothern Michigan. There are some
key items in this brief report which I think should be disclosed before
taking it as anything other than a computed index of giving based largely
upon a sample of tax returns.

1. Data comes from the IRS charitable deduction totals. Short form filers
who give but not enough to meet the standard deduction would not be included
in the data...

and

2. As it has been noted, the states have a higher portion of church
attendees with a mindset of giving to their church. The charitable
contributions in the IRS line would lump United Way and Cancer Society
donations with tithes to the local First Baptist Church since donations
qualify as a charitable donation. The United Way hits the news when it
starts spending 25% or more on overhead, it is not uncommon for churches to
use most of their contributions to operate the church and a much smaller
percentage ends up go to mission and outreach. I've seen it as small as 3%.

and lastly

3. Another commonality to many of the blue states is they have higher
property and income taxes than do the southern states, not to debate the
relative merits/non merits of the situation, but that does impact the amount
left for contributions.

"Peter Charles" wrote in message
...
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

Left out of all of this is the time that many people give to charities which isn't
deducted from their taxes.

Let me see if any conservative time givers come to mind......Nope! What about liberal
time givers..........sure enough...Jimmy Carter!

Mark

Heard today that the blue states are the least likely states to give to
charities. The #1 state, most generous....

Where did you hear that, Dave? And what is the meassure of "generous"?

Ten or 15 years ago, Kevin Phillips, credited with inventing the
"southern strategy" that won the south for Nixon and later asst. AG in
Nixon's administration, wrote a book in which he presented data that
on average, the affluent gave a smaller fraction of their incomes to
charity than did low-income families. The former tend to be
Republicans; the latter, Democrats.

vince