Poorer Bible Belt states more generous than richer New England

This is why I love Southerners so much and am tolerant of conservative Christians. They put their money where their mouths (and hearts) are!

"New Englanders remain among the most tightfisted in the country when it comes to charitable giving while Bible Belt residents are among the most generous, according to an annual index.

"For the fourth year running, New Hampshire was the most miserly state, according to the Catalogue of Philanthropy's Generosity Index. Mississippi remained at the top for generosity.

The index, which takes into account both having and giving, is based on average adjusted gross incomes and the value of itemized charitable donations reported to the Internal Revenue Service on 2003 tax returns, the latest available."

People who tithe are counted as giving all that money to "charity". A fairer comparison would be if you discount giving to churches.

I can say that they contribute relatively smaller amounts to churches and organized charities but larger amounts to neighbors who need help and to strangers. They will help their communities and the people within them who need the help.

Subtract those donations to churches that are not used for charities but which are used for political action and you'll get a far different figure.

However, as any street person will tell you, poor people are much more generous than well dressed people in any fancy suburb or financial district.

vs charitable giving to selves (eg building a grander steeple) are different kinds of giving.

I asked a teen relative if he had been involved in community service activities. He paused and thought and then said, ya - I helped clean out the church shed. While the mega church might have a really big shed and be in great need - I work with some very poor families in the same city - there are great needs - and giving to clean out the church shed - isn't the same as donating cans or food to a food pantry.

I don't know that I would discount all church giving - some church organizations - such as some Catholic Charities and work of the American Friends Service Committee - are very much involved in contributing to the greater community - but I wouldn't suggest that giving to build an even bigger grander mega church complex is the same as giving to a college scholarship fund for, say, children of firemen killed on duty.

While perhaps it isn't 'fair' to discount church giving - breakdowns of amounts (percents) and types of giving would give a more clear picture.

all the other Jones', charitable contributions.

excerpts

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051121/NEWS06/511210354/1012

Index: New Hampshire stingiest in giving
Mississippi remains at the top of annual charitable list; Indiana rises a spot to 24th best

Associated Press
PORTLAND, Maine -- New Englanders remain among the most tightfisted in the country when it comes to charitable giving while Bible Belt residents are among the most generous, according to an annual index.
For the fourth year running, New Hampshire was the most miserly state, according to the Catalogue of Philanthropy's Generosity Index. Mississippi remained at the top for generosity.

In Indiana

The latest Generosity Index rankings based on 2003 tax data puts Indiana at 24th among the 50 states, one spot higher than the previous year's ranking. The state's average adjusted gross income was $42,522, compared with the national average of $47,401, while its average itemized charitable contribution was $3,500 compared with $3,724 nationally.

The index, which takes into account both "having" and "giving," is based on average adjusted gross incomes and the value of itemized charitable donations reported to the Internal Revenue Service on 2003 tax returns, the latest available.

However, its methodology has been criticized and has helped give rise to new studies of charitable giving. Another new study, conducted by The Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University on behalf of a group of New England sponsors, also boosts the case for residents of the six-state region.

That study, which supplements IRS data with a survey of representative households, found that individuals in New England give less, on average, to charity than people in other regions, but that the percentage of New Englanders who do contribute is higher than the national average. It also found that contributors in New England tend to favor secular, rather than religious, causes.

A simple answer for a simplistic generalization. I wonder how credible your info is....

Then yes, they are.

I pay higher taxes because I think the poor should have the sure-thing rather than the charity which is dependent on what people decide to give that week.

The more poor, the less charity being given, and the more people that charity has to help.

"This is why I love Southerners so much and am tolerant of conservative Christians. They put their money where their mouths (and hearts) are!"

A. It's cheaper to live in Yazoo, Mississippi than Peabody, Massachusetts.

B. I'll take a miserly atheist from Maine over a "big-hearted" conservative Christian who aids and abets the decidedly ungenerous and busybody policies of George W. Bush.

and getting 66 cents back , while MS gets $1.17 for the same dollar, thus being subsidized . then giving to churches who discriminate stay there

and our infrastructure is crumbling precisely because of this discrepancy in taxation. Our poor are the victims of cutbacks, and even though our public schools are still ranked #1 or #2, they're suffering too.

I would rather have my federal tax money go toward education in any state rather than faith-based initiatives that discriminate and that line the pockets of psuedo-ministries.

Huh?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2005/11/20/in_tight_fisted_new_england_maines_generosity_stands_out/

I was careful not to use pejoratives like "tight-fisted," btw, curious to watch the response.

the wages are lower. Believe me, I've been to both Yazoo (City btw), MS and Peabody, MA. The wages in Yazoo are much lower.

For instance, a link would have been nice to begin with. Plus, acknowledging the "holes" in the data. Plus, a lot less attitude. Good luck on your stay, here.

:eyes:

I can't really comment on the OP, since there is no link provided to really look over the info but I will say that NH has one of the lowest poverty rates in the nation.

States with the lowest poverty rates, such as NH and VT, are states where citizens put their money where their heart is---they pay higher taxes and vote in candidates that support social programs.

In all fairness, there are also other factrs as to why the poverty rate is higher in Southern states.

See my post #48.

I hope you have a Happy Thanksgiving! :hi:

I didn't read every post. ;)

Happy Thanksgiving to you too.

Should be, but apparently isn't.

Yes, the cost of living in the South is lower but so is pay. Eight bucks an hour is good money in Mississippi. Ten bucks an hour will have people lined up at your door begging for work.

Like Northeasterners, do.

We can't give as much because the State and Uncle Sam take most of it away.

I have no children, I pay $7000. in property taxes a year in part to provide good schooling for our future leaders. The fact that I don't donate to a church is not miserly.

Of course, he's a freeper who lies awake at night worrying that "welfare cheats" are living off his tax money.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

And FReepers hate hearing that.

When you analzye all the giving by GNP, the US performs at very low levels compared to other developed nations.

it ignores whatever people give and do not report to the IRS. Only the upper and upper middle are going to gain by reporting charitable giving to the IRS. It also does not consider disposable income - that is, what a New Hampshirite has left after paying state taxes, federal taxes, heat bills, and snow removal.

never report it on my income tax.

That is given them.

TlalocW

Or does that train only run one way? ;)

Until you do, you are not citing facts, you are merely making assertions.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/money/5373053/detail.html?rss=bos&psp=health

Using that standard, the 10 most generous states were, in descending order, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Utah, South Carolina and West Virginia.

The 10 stingiest, starting from the bottom, were New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Minnesota, Colorado, Hawaii and Michigan.

======

But Bible-based tithing is considered "giving", whilst philanthropy (donating millions to fund a cancer center) is not in this survey.

So my donations toward animal charities don't count and I am officially a tightwad, but if I gave to my church, I'd be a good person, right? :eyes:

:crazy:

Gosh, those rich folks just give & their accountants don't keep records! It would be in poor taste to let the IRS know.

according to this survey. Tax-deductablility was not the only criteria. Example: donating to animal shelters was not included.

it only takes into account total average income.

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.

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/generosity_index/faq.html

Is it only church donations? Because if it is then of course Southerners give more. New Englanders don't go to or spend as much time in church. They do give to non religous organizations. Since you didn't post a link, I take it from your statement that you are referring to evangelicals and their church donations and donations to religious charities? If so this is a very unfair comparison as New Englanders are much more secular than Southerners. If you were to count taxes as a charity though then New Englanders are very generous and the highest recipients of this "charity" is Southerners.

And its conclusions come from IRS data.

Under this formula, tithes dropped in the collection plate/box for ol' Pastor Bob are considered "charitable contributions."

"If so this is a very unfair comparison as New Englanders are much more secular than Southerners. If you were to count taxes as a charity though then New Englanders are very generous and the highest recipients of this "charity" is Southerners."

based on nothing but prejudice and no facts.

Eh?

and should be called on it. So I half-retract my statement. I have seen the study though, and although it might be a half-truth (e.g. not fully taking taxes and cost-of-living into account), it is out there. The OP should have linked to it.

I think the whole argument is really silly and probably meant to distract. Its rather amusing that people are taking the bait.

When someone says they love conservatives because they put their money where their alleged hearts are, you have to realize it's delusional flamebait :)

(whacking self with rod and reel)

Happy Thanksgiving btw, busy week here. Hope yours goes well!

Take a look. Then go help rebuild that school in the photo you posted.

the South is bashed pretty badly here (just one ex.: "The South is a shit hole.")
Look at BlueBear's photo of a school damaged by Katrina and the caption...then tell me who's bashing whom.

http://search.yahoo.com/images

Search Mississippi school.

A bientot. (That's French!)

The Klan are in Indiana, Iowa, Kansas for a start. I KNOW what your picture is representing, so don't think I'm bashing you for posting that picture...because it's true.

But you know, the idiot bigots of the Klan are NOT exclusive to Southern states.

Just sayin'

Do I need to go and hide under the bed? You're NOT go to throw something at me are you?

:scared:

See answer to you below. Someone just asked what the southern schools are like and that is the first picture that popped up. Southerners are great, they just vote funny. :)

Northerners are great, they just talk funny :)

:)

:spank:

Momma's not a Cajun, she was born in Thibodaux, her birth was a geographic accident. She was raised in Lafayette and the Garden District.

But considering you're from Shreveport...I'll let it slide, though you got the spankin' because I like you :)

I was going to call you a Coon-ass...but I was afraid someone would alert on me. :evilgrin:

:evilgrin:

I know what you mean, but I COULDN'T resist ;)

:)

Didn't think so. Who's implying what about whom?

Much as I am enjoying this thread, I have to leave it. Bon chance, ami.

You should have known that your OP with it's OPENING sentence was going to cause a big hullabaloo.

I just don't understand why somebody would do this?

See, you've got me all confused now :cry:

Any cites?

the original study.
A friend of the devil is a friend of mine, btw. (Yeah, I'm a Grateful Dead lovin' "Freeper.")

Does that make her a progressive?

system in NH?

O8)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

When posting your drive by flame bait.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

OP speaks for itself.

That you might not be for much longer.

Congrats on hanging around long enough for 300 posts though.

You're more disciplined than most.

:shrug:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Huh? Freeper?

"if there were an index, one that took taxes, all giving (not just what's reported on itemized tax returns), and cost of living into account, Massachusetts would have ranked number 11 in 2002, far better than the Generosity Index rank of 49."

That's from your own source.

the nation in abortions. :sarcasm:

Wow... let me see if I am on mark... you are from the south, and dislike northerners, and um.... a Republican? Hmmmm?

Shhhhh... I hear freepers live in lala right wing fantasy land.

my tithes, considered charity, went directly into the preacher's pockets ensuring that he was able to buy a home WIUTH a pool here when most of his congregation were just barely getting by paying enormous rents!

Also, did I see earlier that in number of givers, New England states rank higher, but in total $ amount per giver, the southern states ranked higher?

Being a southerner in New England I can see the disparity. The southerners like to BOAST of their giving. The old Yankee stock just keep it to themselves.

The Boston Foundation study challenges the Generosity Index, an analysis of Internal Revenue Service data launched in 1997 that consistently places Massachusetts at or near the bottom of a list of states in charitable giving. George McCully, who designed the index, described it as "crude but telling" and argued that it showed that Massachusetts donors, especially wealthy ones, could afford to give more.

McCully also developed a compelling marketing campaign. He created an annual Catalogue for Philanthropy that is released in late fall, the season of shopping and donating, to give potential donors a taste of the work of small nonprofit organizations, betting that knowledge would make people more generous in their giving.

The Boston Foundation study criticizes the Generosity Index for being biased against high-income states, only considering people who itemize their gifts on tax forms, and ignoring cost-of-living differences such as taxes, mortgage payments, and medical costs. Written by John J. Havens and Paul G. Schervish of the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College, the report rejects the idea of having an index as needlessly chastising but concludes that if there were an index, one that took taxes, all giving (not just what's reported on itemized tax returns), and cost of living into account, Massachusetts would have ranked number 11 in 2002, far better than the Generosity Index rank of 49.

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/ma/news/051113_globe.html

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/inthenews/021124_globe.php

And an illustrative quote:
...a concerted effort in New England to draw attention to the relatively low rate of giving has helped change residents' philanthropic habits in the past five years...

So this kind of research is helping all around.

So many of those fundie preachers raise money by promising their followers that if they "seed their faith" with money, they will be rewarded with a ticket to heaven and wealth on earth.

www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/db/generosity.php?year=2005

Of course it must be wrong! All the Blue Staters say so.

From the FAQ:

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.


So, in other words, tithes are "charitable giving."

http://www.catalogueforphilanthropy.org/cfp/generosity_index/faq.html


I have no doubt at all that Southerners give more money to churches.

Most secular charities have very high percentages of their "take" that goes to overhead.

What people need to do is research the organization they are giving to carefully. The ones I give to do not have a lot of overhead. I would not give to them if they did.

You can't arbitrarily define "charity" to fit your own personal worldview. Well, I guess I am wrong, because you just did.

point that there are many good charities with low overhead. It is true though, that many generous well meaning people don't do enough research end up donating to "charities" that have lots of overhead and where the heads of the organizations make a high salary.

Wasn't trying to pick a fight either, contrary to the tone I used.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving!

That would make me defensive. I guess I am just a little ticked at being considered a cheapskate as a donor when I have donated a lot of money this year but none to churches.

Have a nice holiday as well.:-)

Come on - don't they know religious organizations hold the patent on morality?

THIS is going to go over like a lead balloon. You have courage, my dear.

but it's often harder to be a Southerner among progressives.

Tithes are just membership fees for building upkeep and for the preacher's car, suits, DVDs as well as for prosyletizing purposes.

This "research" is skewed and so is your premise.

I don't consider sending money to James Dobson to be 'charitable giving.'

to James Dobson or FOF.

states, that if their residents gave a thousandfold more than they currently give, and nothing else changed, those states couldn't rise above the midpoint of the index! Check out page 5. Imagine that! :eyes:

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/rvp/pubaf/05/GenerosityReport_10-30-05.pdf

I love refuting trolls and their flamebait. So easy. So fun.

n/t

I don't count tithing as donating to common good. Sorry. Most churchs use little of what they take in to help people, usually it's spent on running the church and paying staff. If they do charity work, it's either in a separate drive or as volunteer hours. Chuches usually help themselves first...

Having said that, it's not secret that those with less usually give more. It's a common fact that all non-profits understand. The richer the donor the more likely they want something in exchange. Most of the money for some small organizations comes in 10 dollar increment.s

Where their mouths are when it comes to funding anti-abortion groups like Randall Terry's freak organization, and they also put their money where their mouths are when it comes to funding anti-gay groups who promote violence and hate towards gay people.

And those Christian Conservatives also put their money where their mouths are when they give money to the Repuke Party to further help them go on their vicious rampages against the sick and the poor and the elderly.

So yep, those Christian Conservatives are a FAB bunch :sarcasm:

Not EVERYBODY in the South IS a Christian Conservative, nor is EVERYBODY in the South a Repuke.

And having Southern blood myself...I must say I've met MANY good and generous people in the North, some good and generous people I've met in Maine, Vermont, Connecticut and Rhode Island.

So can you please NOT be so quick to paint EVERYBODY in the South as a Christian Conservative...and EVERYBODY in the North as being NOT generous and good people. This is just like saying that EVERYBODY in the South supports the Klan...it's that kind of blanket statement.

I NEARLY had to go to New Hampshire last year, but I decided not to, because I've been frightened ever since that mountain with the man's head fell off someplace...and someone told me it was an omen and I'm superstitious.

And you can still see the man in the mountain on our quarter. Imagine, of all the things we could have immortalized on our quarter and the damn thing collapses.

And amongst my dearest friends and associates are people from Houma, Biloxi, Jackson, and Memphis. Meanwhile, my neighbor across the street is a Bush-loving relic. So you're right, geography doth not a human being make.

But that's not the same...I would have gone and seen the real thing, but the damn thing went and fell off :cry: Can't you get someone to like glue it back on or something?

Houma, Jackson and Memphis people are lovely...never met a Biloxi resident before.

Yes, it's NOT the geography, it's how the person is brought up, what their family is like and what they've taught them...it's what's in their HEARTS and NOT what region of the nation they LIVE in.

I met a complete asshole from Seattle once, but I'm not about to make a blanket statement about the ENTIRE population of Seattle and suggest they're all assholes.

That I'm not a fan of your original post. Your opening line was a pretty big blanket statement...and you know, you need to not be doing that kind of thing.

You said that's why you like Christian Conservatives and implied that they were all compassionate and fuzzy and generous...and so I was just pointing out about some of the main things that they rant on about and then go and help fund...which are the OPPOSITE of what a Christian is SUPPOSED to be.

I don't think supporting the Repuke Party who've just voted to cut $700 million of food stamps to the poor, is somehow a generous and Christian thing to do.

Living in Southern California is way more expensive than living in Biloxi, Mississippi. I should know because I've lived in both.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehaw!!!!!!!!! (pulls out banjo...)

not even a nodding acquaintance with the truth and rude to boot.

I don't give a dime to anyone. I'm poor anyway, and my 5 bucks isn't going to make a difference to the Red Cross or whoever.

I posted the results of a survey and (OMG!) said I tolerate conservative Christians. Tolerate, not agree with.

Results:
Half a dozen or so accusations of "Freeper!"
Four or five deleted messages, one from BlueBear, zero from me.
Over a dozen bashes of churches.
A few generalizations about the South, and a couple about the North.
Plenty of blatant mischaracterizations of the OP.
A whole lotta love.

Sorry if I was rude and copped an attitude. I love the South and progressivism, and wish there were fewer stereotypes about both.

They either resent giving or feel sanctimonious when they do. People who view charitable giving as a topic for a flame war simply amaze me.

That said, if I had to depend on kindness and charity from ANYONE, I'd hope they didn't begrudge what they gave. I'd rather have nothing.

Let you live in my house, if you found yourself in a situation where you had nowhere else to live.

And I think MANY people on DU would do the same, but I'd like to think that that's the kind of compassionate people we are and nobody would begrudge doing that.

No state tax means the money has to come from some where, usually it's in the property taxes. Having lived in the South as well as the North, I found it much cheaper in the south.

Having lived in NH and grown up there I've many times been on the receiving end of some act of kindness. I got lost trying to get to some place. It was pushing the middle of the midnight. To make a long explanation short, a stranger drove his car and I followed, 20 mins out of his way just to get me where I needed to go. I have a lot of stories like that one.

When I lived in the south, I never had any random act of kindness while living there. Then again I wasn't an active member of the church. Or perhaps I was just unlucky or scowling a lot. Southern state has MANY churches, perhaps that is why the donation basket jingles for its churches?

Then again I don't want to turn this into a North and South thing, aren't we past that? Maybe I should of seen this thread for what it was: flame bait.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

was in response to the OP.

A little button pushing goes a long way.

i currently LIVE IN MA :eyes:

are you capable of READING?

And to pretend the south is the only one capable of doing good deeds is downright misleading and an out and out fib....

Doesn't the bible say somewhere that those who give and need an audience so others can see how good they are are in effect bragging, something I don't believe Jesus approved of...

yet it's okay for you to bash the north? Okay. :eyes:

I guess she/he must be mad at someone who made a disparaging remark against Southerners and decided to get even by making blanket statements (repeatedly) about Northerners and New Englanders in particular. That makes sense doesn't it? And also such a very "progressive" thing to do. :sarcasm:

:sarcasm:

The attitude that southerners are more generous really pisses me off. A shack here goes for > $300k. A decent house runs for a lot more (500k), and I'm only talking about the suburbs (so most commute >30 min each way....ave commute is 45 min). Hardly anyone can afford to get close to the city. Also, New Englanders are not showy with their giving. They don't always report it on the tax return (myself included....I give to people, but don't always keep the receipts).

We have a higher cost of living in Boston than San Francisco and New York.

There's not much money left over for charity.

I never knew that (I had to move back to CT from New York because the rent was insane...... about $2500 per month for 600 square feet in Manhattan). I never knew Boston was as bad.

just because that's how you like it apparently :eyes:

pick your choice. The later is an old technique to recruit souls.

It's that if you were to look at other state by state comparisons, this "generosity" list would probably be turned on it's head. Alabama alone probably ranks near the bottom of most rankings on social wellness that you could run. Infant mortality. Healthcare. Education. I bet you all of these so-called states of "generosity" are heaped right at the bottom.

I could be wrong and I'm not a stat man but it seems people outside of the bible belt seem to get it: That the well being of a community should be dependent on more than someone's generosity.

I wouldn't gloat too much. I was paying 5 times the property tax in NY than I do in Georgia because I wanted to make sure that my kid and the kids of my neighbors received a decent education and that we at least made an attempt to maintain our infrastructures. Why don't the people of the South feel the same way?

Could there be any other answer? :eyes:

and lots of poorer people do not even itemize..

Figures lie and liars figure:)

Even the architects of the Generosity Index say this is why the Bible Belt and Utah rate highly on this index, because of tithing. That is, they are supporting their religious institutions, not charities in general. If they belong to a faith that spreads the resources outside of the church, that's one thing. If the church uses these charitable dollars to sustain itself with a pittance to nonmembers, those 'tight-fisted' people in other parts of the country doing more good with their donations to medical research, food banks, relief agencies, local programs, etc.

This index is not scientific measurement --again, check out the organization's website. They are quite clear about this.
It's a simple ranking based on two median values available from IRS data. I could pick two other income tax elements, compare them, and come up with an entirely different rank order.

This post has become a flamefest.