Generosity Index

Who really are the charitable ones

Published on November 10, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

I love statistics.

The generosity index is from the people at the Catalogue of Philantrophy. It is computed by taking each state's average income and the state's charitable donations and then ranking them.

Turns out, red states do much better than blue states:

Now before conservatives get too excited about demonstrating their moral superiority, I would be interested in seeing a chart of the original data - that is, the average income per person per state. Because this may be heavily influenced by income.

Because this could just as easily be a table that proves that the more you tax people, the less they give to charity.

Comments (Page 1)

thetech

on Nov 10, 2004

Well I live in NY (the highest rated blue state at #26) and if you want to make the comparison with tax rates, we are among some of the highest taxed individuals in the country, so I don't think that is the case.

I am however shocked to see that NY rated so highly in charitable donations, there are a lot of selfish misreable SOB's around here! (before anyone gets angry about that comment I include myself in those angry numbers!!!)

Texas Wahine

on Nov 10, 2004

This is interesting. Let me ask you a question (if you don't mind answering it) . . . does the insane amount of money you personally pay in taxes lessen the amount you can afford, or are inclined to, give to charity and if so, to what extent?

(BTW -- I am not trying to make a point or anything, I am genuinely curious)

mgosh

on Nov 10, 2004

Here's another chart this time equating voter's IQ and how they voted.

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

Psikotik

on Nov 10, 2004

As an avowed Dem and agnostic, I have to admit that it looks to me like most of the states in the "Bible Belt" (red states) seem to be the most generous. Now whether this has to do with religious convictions is another debate. I'm sure people go to church in the other states too....
And also what kind of charitable contributions does the study include? Are soup kitchens and food contributions included or simply donations of money? Are corporate donations figured in? If so, do they count for their home state or where they donated? Just wondering.....

iamheather

on Nov 10, 2004

Here's another chart this time equating voter's IQ and how they voted.

And here is one that debunks that IQ chart

Link

shadesofgrey

on Nov 10, 2004

The table is actually a ranking of the gap between Average Adjusted Gross Income (AAGI) and Average Itemized Charitable Contribution (AICC). You take the AAGI rank and subtract the AICC rank and you get the gap--these are then ranked. So, for example, say Mississippi had the lowest income and the lowest charitable contribution (ranked 50th in both)-- 50-50=0, putting them at the high end of the gap ranking.

Also, it is based on tax returns--not everyone lists their charitable donations and many people donate anonymously.

mgosh

on Nov 10, 2004

Turns out Chris's site links there too, thanks for the debunk on that site, it was spread at work and I wanted to find more inforamation about it.

iamheather

on Nov 10, 2004

Turns out Chris's site links there too, thanks for the debunk on that site, it was spread at work and I wanted to find more inforamation about it.

No problem. I am not saying I agree with either, but I just thought I would list both sides. This list of IQs and voting has been floating around in one form or another since 2000 and the Gore debacle.

Grim Xiozan

on Nov 10, 2004

What I am surprised with is Oklahoma being ranked three when I know for a fact they have terrible tax system. They have graduated tax system that even taxes what property you have inside your house based on value, bleh.

Good thing I now live in Indiana where I can get my fancy TV and Computer and not be taxed annually for it.

I will gladly accept from a hamburger from you today if you will glad accept me paying you next Tuesday Plinko!!

sunwukong

on Nov 10, 2004

Looking at both the raw data (Link) and the Technical Notes (Link), this has obviously been poorly thought out.

1. rank of AAGI (Average Adjusted Gross Income) is a valid measure = (Adjusted Gross Income) / (# of returns)
2. rank of AICC (Average Itemized Charitable Contribution) is a valid measure = (Charitable Contributions) / (# of itemized returns)
3. AAGI - AICC is not a valid measure since the populations are different, i.e., AAGI and AICC don't involve all of the same people
4. rank of AAGI - AICC is not a valid measure

The simplest way to achieve what they wanted to do would have been to take the total amount of Charitable Contributions as a percentage of the total Adjusted Gross Income. This yields the following table: (state, new rank, difference with old rank)

state	new rank	change
Utah	1	6
Alabama	2	6
Mississippi	3	-2
South Carolina	4	5
Georgia	5	18
Idaho	6	-1
North Carolina	7	8
Arkansas	8	-6
Oklahoma	9	1
Maryland	10	22
Tennessee	11	-7
Kentucky	12	2
Virginia	13	22
Kansas	14	3
Arizona	15	13
New York	16	29
Nebraska	17	-1
Louisiana	18	-6
California	19	23
Delaware	20	19
Missouri	21	0
Minnesota	22	18
Oregon	23	7
Michigan	24	12
Texas	25	-1
New Mexico	26	0
Florida	27	-7
Indiana	28	-9
Montana	29	-11
Colorado	30	14
Ohio	31	-6
Illinois	32	11
New Jersey	33	15
Iowa	34	-12
Nevada	35	-2
Pennsylvania	36	2
Hawaii	37	4
Washington	38	-1
Wisconsin	39	-10
Alaska	40	-6
Rhode Island	41	5
West Virginia	42	-31
Connecticut	43	6
South Dakota	44	-41
North Dakota	45	-32
Maine	46	-19
Massachusetts	47	3
Vermont	48	-17
Wyoming	49	-43
New Hampshire	50	-3

This is assuming that people should be giving in proportion to their income. However, it's still not the most accurate picture. The one piece of raw data that isn't available is the total Adjusted Gross Income for the returns with Charitable Contributions. This would produce a more accurate picture of what's going on, charity wise.

sunwukong

on Nov 10, 2004

p.s. Besides journalists who don't have any idea on how to evaluate statistics or even have the energy to look at the validity of their sources, I *hate* cut-and-paste HTML.

shadesofgrey

on Nov 10, 2004

Sunwukong--that's sort of what I was trying to say...but I think it is also important to note that it is based on what you itemize on your taxes...I donate a lot, but don't itemize my taxes.

It also assumes that the only "generousity" that counts is monetary. I used to volunteer 15 hours a week at a DV shelter--to me, generosity with time is just as important
generosity with your bank account.

sunwukong

on Nov 10, 2004

Reply By: shadesofgreyPosted: Wednesday, November 10, 2004Sunwukong--that's sort of what I was trying to say

I realize that -- but I thought it would be worthwhile to make it explicit what the difference would be.

but I think it is also important to note that it is based on what you itemize on your taxes...I donate a lot, but don't itemize my taxes. It also assumes that the only "generousity" that counts is monetary. I used to volunteer 15 hours a week at a DV shelter--to me, generosity with time is just as important generosity with your bank account.

I completely agree -- and throw in what constitutes a charity and what doesn't (and who don't even bother to register) and the situation becomes murkier.

Also, since I'm not familiar with your tax code, you can also argue whether the incentive to give to, say, a political party is at odds with giving to a charity. The most revealing, if it was possible to collect, info would be how all discretionary income was disposed of, especially if recipients would track donated time as well.

Draginol

on Nov 10, 2004

BTW, anyone who would take an IQ survey like that seriously probably doesn't have an IQ.

Here's a quick poll: How many people have taken an IQ test that would somehow be available to someone taking a survey? (crickets).

I've taken IQ tests but nothing that would ever be on record somewhere that someone could then use for scientific research and I suspect everyone else here is in the same category.

Charitable donations and income are something that there's plenty of records available on.

stellazorro

on Nov 13, 2004

I guess Sierra Club & Planned Parenthood should implement the Collection Plate technique.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!