Announcement

**Dis** · February 15, 2005, 04:50

how about that, red states over blue states.

is it possible the right wing is right about something?

**Jaguar** · February 15, 2005, 04:50

I didn't post a colored version because I knew it wouldn't be necessary.

**Dis** · February 15, 2005, 04:52

I can take 2 meanings from those results, that's why I haven't really commented.

You could say blues states don't need charitable donations because they have enhanced social structure. I'm not sure if I buy that though. But I have never lived in a blue state, so I can't say for sure.

**Jaguar** · February 15, 2005, 04:57

Here's a colored version for anyone who doesn't have our little overly-hyped divisions memorized.

Mississippi
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Louisiana
Alabama
Tennessee
South Dakota
Utah
South Carolina
Idaho
Wyoming
Texas
West Virginia
Nebraska
North Dakota
North Carolina
Kansas
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Montana
Missouri
New Mexico
Alaska
Indiana
New York
Iowa
Ohio
California
Maryland
Illinois
Maine
Delaware
Washington
Vermont
Oregon
Hawaii
Virginia
Arizona
Nevada
Pennsylvania
Michigan
Colorado
Connecticut
Minnesota
Wisconsin
New Jersey
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
New Hampshire

**Jaguar** · February 15, 2005, 05:09

And this is off the topic of my thread, but I found it funny.

**Urban Ranger** · February 15, 2005, 05:29

Using published data of individual tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service, we compare the rank of each state's average adjusted gross income (AAGI) to the rank of each state's average itemized charitable deductions (AICD).

Does this deduction include donations to religious organisations as well? If so, this explains why the red states are more "generous."

**Jaguar** · February 15, 2005, 06:13

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

Does this deduction include donations to religious organisations as well? If so, this explains why the red states are more "generous."

That's the best you can come up with?

Churches get their donations weekly, and nobody gets tax deductions for them. People who go to Church throw a twenty in the collection tin. They don't make massive thousand dollar donations to their church and then write them off their taxes. And the money from the collections doesn't just disappear. It goes to Alcoholics Anonymous, or the Salvation Army, or other organizations that help people.

But you're never going to believe that.

**DRoseDARs** · February 15, 2005, 06:23

Or you could have just quoted their Technical Notes section:

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.

**DRoseDARs** · February 15, 2005, 06:24

And their F.A.Q. section as well:

Frequently Asked Questions

Here are some frequently asked questions to the Catalogue for Philanthropy about the Generosity Index, and their answers. If you cannot find what you are looking for, please email Anne Taylor.

1. What methodology is used in the creation of the Generosity Index?

Using published data of individual tax returns from the Internal Revenue Service, we compare 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.

Each year, the IRS makes available data from two years ago; thus the 2004 Generosity Index reflects IRS data from 2002.

We use IRS data because, although crude, it is telling and the best data available on a regular basis for understanding how charitable giving relates to income. In using this data, we accept the federal government's definitions of what charitable giving is, and that includes giving to religious groups, churches and many other institutions.

You may download the Excel file that we have created to formulate the Generosity Index (on our website). Please note that there are separate worksheets within the Excel file (you can click on the different sheets along the bottom), which reflect the data according to various income levels: $75K-$100K, $100K-$200K, $200K+ and All Returns.

For further information and examples of how the Index is compiled, please refer to Technical Notes on our website.

2. Do you provide analysis on the Generosity Index rankings?

We intentionally do not provide comment, analysis or interpretation of what the IRS has reported annually about the nation's personal income tax returns. We provide the relevant numbers on income and charitable deductions, and leave interpretation to others — in most cases, the media. We do not always agree with their interpretations, but we believe, on the basis of evidence, that all discussions of charitable giving are good, because they get people to think about philanthropy and in particular about their own charitable giving. We have found that this consideration increases giving, which is our purpose.

3. Your ranking doesn’t seem to take into account costs of living, which may be why so-called “wealthy states” such as Connecticut, California and Massachusetts rank lower in the Generosity Index.

Costs of living are difficult to take into account because there is no statewide data on costs of living -- that data is around metropolitan areas.

Furthermore, costs of living only kick in as a factor as you go down the income scale; at the upper reaches of income, costs of living are not an inhibiting factor, and the majority of charitable giving is done by those at the top of the income scales.

4. What is the Catalogue for Philanthropy?

We are a charitable organization sponsored by individual donors, foundations and corporations, whose support helps us to fulfil our mission: donor education. Through an annual Catalogue published each November, we provide support to small charities with operating budgets of $2 million or less. Each year, the Catalogue features 65-70 charities and provides evidence of their excellence. It is then mailed to wealthy individuals, encouraging them as potential donors to think creatively about their charitable giving.

We have Catalogues in Massachusetts, Washington DC and St Louis, with plans to start Catalogues in Los Angeles and Australia.

**Jaguar** · February 15, 2005, 06:46

That really doesn't answer his question.

**Last Conformist** · February 15, 2005, 08:02

Originally posted by Jaguar
They don't make massive thousand dollar donations to their church and then write them off their taxes.

They should!

**Mr. Harley** · February 15, 2005, 08:14

First, wrong data. Church contributions are tax deductable, and since they are using IRS data, any reported will be included. You don't even need receipts below a certain amount, I cannot remember what it is.

Secondly, since they pro-rate it based on income, that means that the people in the expensive blue states are giving less of their total income. Does it correct for cost of living, i.e. does it look at the total amount of disposable income the person has, and then figure out how much of that they are giving? That could be figured out in part by analyzing deduction patterns for state taxes and mortgages. I suspect you will find the divide substantially less.

Thirdly, and this is interesting (I have not researched this as I am only peripheally interested) blacks give substantially more, on the average, than whites. Therefor, what you have is red states taken credit for high amounts of giving - many of those are southern states with substantial black communities - by one of the most democratic constituencies in the country, blacks. Ironic, isn't it.

**KrazyHorse** · February 15, 2005, 08:16

a) What an odd method of ranking. Why not simply divide the mean charitable donation by the mean income?

b) I'd like to see a breakdown of where the donations go. Your dismissal of the effect that donations to religious organisations/churches have is premature. In some states (like Utah) a large portion of the public does give to their church in bulk.

c) Even worse, I just noticed that the way they arrive at the "giving rank" is to take the mean charitable donation from tax returns which itemize their charitable donations from each state.

What an idiotic methodology.

**KrazyHorse** · February 15, 2005, 08:20

There are certainly better ways to find the total charitable donations made per state. Nonprofits need to file returns listing their incomes, so why not go at it the other way?

Announcement

Interesting...

Interesting...

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment