PDA

View Full Version : Most generous Americans


so.cal.fan
11-21-2005, 10:10 AM
Just heard a very interesting report on MSNBC news this morning.
A new study tells us that the most generous Americans are people who live in the "Bible Belt". They give more to charities to help the poor and helpless.
The most stingy folks are on the East Coast! New Hampshire leading the list.
Mississippi citizens are the most generous in the U.S. according to the survey.
On average the midwestern states outgive the rest of the country.
Does this suprise anyone?

twindouble
11-21-2005, 10:16 AM
Just heard a very interesting report on MSNBC news this morning.
A new study tells us that the most generous Americans are people who live in the "Bible Belt". They give more to charities to help the poor and helpless.
The most stingy folks are on the East Coast! New Hampshire leading the list.
Mississippi citizens are the most generous in the U.S. according to the survey.
On average the midwestern states outgive the rest of the country.
Does this suprise anyone?

Not at all, the church or any other charity always goes after those that practice their religion; That's all that suggests, the big question is, where does the money go and how much actually goes to those that need it? That's how I bace my donations.

so.cal.fan
11-21-2005, 10:19 AM
I do the same, Twin.....however, we are from "stingy states".......perhaps those "bible belt" people are more trusting than we are?
They just truly want to help the less fortunate.
You can't fault them for that.....
That said......there are so many "bogus" charities, I just can't help but be cautious of who I donate to.

Suff
11-21-2005, 10:34 AM
I've seen this index talked about a few times. Its a difficult thing to hear when one part of the country, or a certain portion of citizens use Data to insult a Sate, or segment of people.

"We give...you don't".... I really don't think thats accurate, or fair. Americans as a whole are giving people. And when I see index's that rank education, healthcare, income, and many other social indicators, frequently the Southern States lag behind the Coasts, or midwestern states. But for some reason they have grabbed a hold of the Giving index and are using it as a way to define peoples hearts in America. I really don't care for the manner in which its being used.

further... its the way the compile the data ....



The Catalogue for Philanthropy is a project started in Massachusetts that seeks to increase awareness of philanthropy through several different initiatives, including the Generosity Index. The Index compares each state’s average adjusted gross income to its average giving per capita. The Catalogue defines generous states as those with the greatest difference between their average giving and their income.

For the eighth consecutive year, the state of Mississippi is the most generous state. Although last in gross income, it ranks fifth in giving. In second is Arkansas, followed by Oklahoma, Louisiana and Alabama. The least generous five states, according to the survey, are Wisconsin, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Overall, Southern and Midwestern states are at the top of the Giving Index, a trend attributed to the regions’ practice of tithing – giving a percentage of one’s income to the church.

Despite the appearance of many Northeastern states near the bottom of the Index, some of them experienced significant increases in average donations. In general, their higher-than-average levels of gross income keep them from being ranked more generous, according to the system developed for the


http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/

boxcar
11-24-2005, 08:47 PM
Mr. Suff quotes:

Despite the appearance of many Northeastern states near the bottom of the Index, some of them experienced significant increases in average donations. In general, their higher-than-average levels of gross income keep them from being ranked more generous, according to the system developed for the

Soo...what does that mean? It means that while "some of them experienced significant increases in average donations", nonetheless those increases weren't significant enough to impact the ratio to income to the extent that it would have put them at or near the top. Mississippians might indeed be "poor", but they're, evidently, generous "above their means". Have you not read in the bible?:

Mark 12:41-44
41 And He sat down opposite the treasury, and began observing how the multitude were putting money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in large sums. 42 And a poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amount to a cent. 43 And calling His disciples to Him, He said to them, "Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury; 44 for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on. "
NASB

Therefore, I submit to you, sir, that the index, in all likelihood, is valid.

Boxcar

GaryG
11-25-2005, 08:24 AM
I haved lived in several different regions and I believe this is true. People in the south genuinely care about their neighbors and are extremely generous in times of disaster. My small town sent several truckloads of supplies to the gulf coast victims and I know that many people gave beyond their means. That is just the way of life.

Turntime
11-25-2005, 10:02 AM
Here's part of an article from The Boston Foundation which suggests that the math behind the Generosity Index is flawed:



"Geography and Generosity includes an analysis of the Generosity Index—which is based on income tax returns—and determined that it is inaccurate in part because of a built-in bias against high-income states, such as Massachusetts, and for low-income states such as Mississippi, which has frequently come out as the most generous state in the nation on the Index.

When Dr. Schervish and his team used the same formula that was used by Dr. George McCully, publisher of the Catalogue for Philanthropy and the creator of the Generosity Index, they determined that even if Massachusetts residents had given 100 or 1,000 times the amount of money that was in fact donated to charity in 2004, and held giving by all other states constant, the state could not rise above number 23 on the Index. At the same time, the calculation suggested that the state of Mississippi would not fall below 26th place out of 50 even if residents of that state had given zero to charity in 2004.

John J. Havens, Senior Research Associate and Associate Director of the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy, cites what he believes to be three critical errors in the Index methodology:

*Average adjusted gross income is calculated for one group of people (all who filed income tax forms), while the average charitable deduction is calculated for a separate group—those who itemize their returns. Because the two groups are not the same, no meaningful ratio of generosity can be calculated using this data.

*The use of itemized returns adds doubt to any conclusions because while only 20 percent of residents in some states itemize their returns, the proportion in other states rises as high as 40 percent. In specific, 21 percent of residents of Mississippi filed itemized returns while 37 percent of Massachusetts residents did the same. This reflects a much higher cost of living in Massachusetts. In particular, the cost of housing in the Bay State is significantly higher than in Mississippi which would encourage more residents to itemize their returns. This underscores important differences in standards of living that have an influence on giving.

*Also, tax returns do not capture the total income of all the residents of a state, and itemized tax returns do not capture the total charitable contribution they make. Those who are not required to file an income tax return, for example, are lost to the calculation of the Index.
Schervish and Havens cite other problems with the Index, as well: it does not take into account the significant differences in tax burdens in different states, other differences in the cost of living, or the differences in patterns in giving to secular and religious institutions and causes—all of which differentiate regions of the country as well as specific states."



There are lies, damned lies and statistics. My experience is that Americans, by and large, are a generous people wherever you go. To suggest that people from Mississippi are generous while people from Massachusetts are stingy is a gross distortment.

so.cal.fan
11-25-2005, 10:07 AM
Obviously, Mass. is going to put a spin on their bad publicity.

Buckeye
11-25-2005, 10:39 AM
Taxes are higher in the East.

Might have something to do with it.

so.cal.fan
11-25-2005, 10:43 AM
Does anyone have higher taxes than the residents of California?
We sure didn't hit the top ten on the most generous list, but we didn't make the bottom of the list either.
Maybe we are in better moods because we have better weather than the "stingy" east coast? :D

Buckeye
11-25-2005, 10:48 AM
We are "under seige" SCRF :)

I think taxes have something to do with it.

Charity comes from the budget. If there's nothing left there's nothing left.

Turntime
11-25-2005, 03:58 PM
So. Cal Fan:

Let me put it another way. It would be easy enough to do a study of state's generosity by using a figure of amount donated per person and come up with a completely different ranking - and it would be an equally meaningless statistic except to be used as grist for somebody's political mill.

But even if we accepted % of income donated as a true measure of generosity (which is debatable) the method that was used to create the index was flawed and the results, therefore, unreliable.