Interesting...

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
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.

I agree that the ranking system is idiotic. Especially point A. That's just absurdly silly.

But the evidence is so overwhelming here, that I don't think that really matters.

[KrazyHorse]

Really? I'm not sure the evidence is so overwhelming.

For instance, Mississippi is assigned a giving rank of 5 based on the fact that the average return among those which itemised donations listed $4484. Massachussets was assigned a giving rank of 39 with $2928

However, only 240 000 returns in Mississippi itemised donations out of 1.2 million filed (20%). In Massachussets, on the other hand, 1.1 million out of 3.1 million did so (35%).

Therefore, Massachussets is actually on record for a larger dollar figure of donations per tax return filed than is Mississippi

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jaguar
Churches get their donations weekly, and nobody gets tax deductions for them.

That's not true. Church donations are most definately charitable deductions. Back when I still believed, at the end of every year, my church would send us all a tax document with how much money we donated, which was why it was always a good idea to use your individual envelopes, so there was a way to track your donations.

[Jaguar]

You counted how much you gave each week and added it all up?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Really? I'm not sure the evidence is so overwhelming.

For instance, Mississippi is assigned a giving rank of 5 based on the fact that the average return among those which itemised donations listed $4484. Massachussets was assigned a giving rank of 39 with $2928

However, only 240 000 returns in Mississippi itemised donations out of 1.2 million filed (20%). In Massachussets, on the other hand, 1.1 million out of 3.1 million did so (35%).

Therefore, Massachussets is actually on record for a larger dollar figure of donations per tax return filed than is Mississippi

I will look at your maths after I get some sleep. I'm low on it at the moment, and if I argue with you I will assuredly be pwnd.

[KrazyHorse]

In fact, it seems like my point (c) is the most damning.

Using the data they provide, the top ten states in terms of charitable donations/total returns filed are:

Utah
Maryland
New York
Georgia
Connecticut
New Jersey
Virginia
California
North Carolina
Alabama

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jaguar
You counted how much you gave each week and added it all up?

No, the Church did. What part of "my Church sent us a tax document" didn't you read?

[Jaguar]

I am getting myself pwnd here and I lack the energy to defend myself due to little sleep.

I pronounce this argument to be in a space-launch-style "hold" until I get more sleep.

[chequita guevara]

Good night, sweet prince.

[KrazyHorse]

On another note, Mississippi sucks hard.

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/28000.html

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, the Church did. What part of "my Church sent us a tax document" didn't you read?

Your church was very interested in money it appears. I can't recall any of the churchs I ever went to doing that. Must me a northern thing or a big church thing.

[Mr. Harley]

Actually, quite a few churches have been doing this since a change in the tax law back sometime in the 1980's or 1990's, I believe the latter. They may be changing it back, but to take the deduction you had to have that piece of paper. This shows Chegitz gave enough, during that time period, to get that statement. The fact you didn't indicates a different time period, or....

[Shi Huangdi]

For one thing, Churches don't just pocket the money, they use it for stuff such as helping the poor and sick, or helping poorer children attend their schools.

Of course, probably a good number of those contributions in Blue States go to cultural "charities", stuff such as operas, theatres and public radio/television.