Generosity Index does not measure Generosity!

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHARITABLE_GIVING_GLANCE?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US
Listing of states for 2003

==============================================================
The Generosity Index are an index developed by taking state rankings on adjusted gross income, and state rankings on an estimate of charitable giving, and each state get a difference in its ranks created, and then the states are ranked on these differences; the more a state moves up in "giving" compared to where it is in "having" — and compared to other states' movements — the more generous it is seen. (Result - The Boston Foundation commissioned the Boston College Center on Wealth and Philanthropy to perform the study and using Generosity Index calculations, the study shows that even if Mass residents increased their giving by 10 times, 1,000 times, or 100,000 times their current amount and all other states stayed the same, Massachusetts would never rank higher than 23d on the index. Likewise, if residents of Mississippi -- the most generous state, according to the index -- stopped giving altogether, the state would not fall below 26 http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/11/08/mass_generous_after_all_study_finds/ )

Does anyone think the media will explain tonight the error caused by the reliance on comparisons of rank data: to be deemed generous, your rank on giving has to be superior to your rank on earning, and when you are already ranking highly on earning it's extremely difficult to outrank yourself on giving. (States ranked lower for earning power have more room to improve their ranks on giving, and thus this difference in ranks — the basis for the Generosity Index — is easier for low earning states; this in turn makes it more difficult to wealthier states to do well on the Generosity Index.)

Plus we use apples and oranges: Itemized returns are needed for all but not all file itemized returns, so we extrapolate (It estimates charitable donations based on tax returns, and assumes that the entire states' taxpayers donate at the same rate as those who itemize their charitable deductions, so a state like Mississippi where only 20% itemize is one heck of an extrapolation) Note that the method overstates actual giving - itemizing taxpayers represent about 60 percent of the total estimated charitable contributions in the United States (The Urban Institute, 2001), but we get charitable deductions from corporations, so there there is not another 40% available to spread over non-itemizing taxpayers.

The ten states that have the greatest positive extrapolation error making them look good, per taxpayer are:

Wyoming (Bush)
Tennessee (Bush)
Texas (Bush)
Mississippi (Bush)
Utah (Bush)
Arkansas (Bush)
Louisiana (Bush)
South Dakota (Bush)
Oklahoma (Bush)
Alabama (Bush)

And the ten states have the lowest positive benefit from this extrapolation are:

Rhode Island (Kerry)
New Hampshire (Kerry)
Maine (Kerry)
Wisconsin (Kerry)
Vermont (Kerry)
New Jersey (Kerry)
Minnesota (Kerry)
Massachusetts (Kerry)
Oregon (Kerry)
Arizona (Bush)

Using rank data to avoid creating a real giving index using per capita percentage of dollars in donations to dollars in income rankings is simply a way to make the welfare states look better, and to suggest Bush voters have higher values than others. As usual in Bush world, the opposite is true (well not really - Blue and Red are almost exactly the same year after year - with the percentage going to charity is only about 2-3%.

Folks - we are all cheap :-(

papau

Tithes to a church are as deductible on one's taxes as donations to Unicef or a battered women's shelter. Many people in the Bible belt donate to their churches, regardless of their income. Only some of this goes to any purpose that I would consider charitable.