The GI report is out, and again, those awful red states full of evil rednecks that need to be “educated” about compassion top the list as the Americans who give the most of their income to charity (the GI is proportional to income):
|
State
|
GI Rank 2003
|
|
Mississippi
|
1
|
|
Arkansas
|
2
|
|
South Dakota
|
3
|
|
Oklahoma
|
4
|
|
Tennessee
|
5
|
|
Alabama
|
6
|
|
Louisiana
|
7
|
|
Utah
|
8
|
|
South Carolina
|
9
|
|
West Virginia
|
10
|
And who are the ten least generous states? Why, those enlightened blue states, of course!
|
State
|
GI Rank 2003
|
| Illinois |
40
|
| Michigan |
41
|
| Hawaii |
42
|
| Colorado |
43
|
| Minnesota |
44
|
| Connecticut |
45
|
| Wisconsin |
46
|
| Rhode Island |
47
|
| New Jersey |
48
|
| Massachusetts |
49
|
| New Hampshire |
50
|
Fascinating!
Bob says:
It would be interesting to compare this list to state and local tax burdens. My guess is that charitable giving is strongly negatively correlated with tax burden.
November 22, 2005, 1:45 pmmahndisa says:
11 22 05
Good post Prof:
November 22, 2005, 4:24 pmBob, if that was the case how come Oregon wasn’t first on the list, or even Florida? I dunno, religious givers live in the red states more… Atheist blue staters are communazis who are selfish! (oxymoron I know) LOL! Happy Thxgiving Prof!
David Sanders says:
The Generosity Index is a hoax. It is a hoax that has been perpetrated on the American public by media that apparently completely lack journalistic inquisitiveness. There are statistics that give the Index verisimilitude, but it is shocking that there has been practically no consideration of what the numbers actually mean. The treatment of the Generosity Index as a serious matter by the media is no less shocking than any dependence on flawed unnamed sources or forged documents. The exploitation of the Generosity Index for political purposes is even more outrageous and demonstrates a lack of either moral or journalistic integrity. Rush Limbaugh, Michelle Malkin, Andrew Sullivan, Michael Medved, Wesley Pruden, Senator Trent Lott, and Charles W. Dunn (Dean of the Robertson School of Government at Regent University) have all made absurd and unwarranted conclusions from comparing the state rankings derived from the Generosity Index and election results. Either they lack the intellectual wherewithal to realize that the Index is nonsense or they are deliberately engaging in yet another willful distortion of facts. Ms. Malkin in addition appears in her Web posting to engage in plagiarism by not acknowledging that others had presented the graphic correlation of the Index and election results previously.
What is wrong with the Index? In general states with low per capita income and lower levels of education are ranked higher than those with higher income and education level. The Index is based on a statistically suspect combination of rankings based upon state average gross income (AGI) and average itemized charitable contribution deductions (ICD). The data are obtained from the Internal Revenue Service. Some commentators have focused on the fact that only money contributions are included, whereas others have suggested that the higher cost of living in the richer states may contribute to lower levels of monetary charitable contributions. Both of these criticisms miss the point. Average deductible charitable contributions are simply NOT an accurate measure of actual monetary contributions when there are wide variations in the percentage of income-tax filers who itemize contributions. In Connecticut, for example, 40% of filers itemize, whereas in Mississippi only 20% do. This variation results from the fact that charitable contributions are not the only factor that leads to the decision to itemize. Taxpayers in wealthier states will own property with higher values and therefore higher mortgages. They are also more likely to be paying higher deductible state and local taxes (and also receiving greater public services). They are therefore far more likely to itemize their deductions. Consequently, a taxpayer in Connecticut who is only donating $1000 to charity is far more likely to itemize than is a taxpayer from Mississippi. Only those Mississippians who have made larger contributions will find it worthwhile to itemize. Small contributors will be excluded from the Mississippi average, although they are included in the Connecticut average.
Please see the rest of my analysis at
December 23, 2005, 2:40 pmhttp://www.progressiveindiana.org/node/157
Mahndisa says:
12 22 05
David: Haven’t you heard of a bulletted list? It might make it easier to read your liberal rantings. I think it nice that you pointed out methodological concerns with the data, but you can always do so with less words….
December 23, 2005, 3:05 pmrightwingprof says:
There are certainly methodological problems, but our visiting liberal’s argument actually supports the interpretation that conservative states give more to charity than liberal states (how is left as an exercise for the liberal reader).
December 23, 2005, 3:15 pmMahndisa says:
12 22 05
Ha ha ha ha ha: Thx for the response to that comment. I just hate it when people decide to come to a blog and rant like that. And usually I am very curious about methodolgies in data analysis. Yet I thought this was more of a qualitative exercise. Oh well…Merry Christmas!
December 23, 2005, 6:42 pm