Utah, The Most Charitable State (Sort Of) - Funny Article!

[smac97]

http://washington.cb...harity-sort-of/

BOSTON (AP) — A new study on the generosity of Americans suggests that states with the least religious residents are also the stingiest about giving money to charity.

The funny part of the article is the defensiveness of those stingy folks and the excuses they provide for their stinginess. Read on...

The study released Monday by the Chronicle of Philanthropy found that residents in states where religious participation is higher than the rest of the nation, particularly in the South, gave the greatest percentage of their discretionary income to charity.

Go, Protestants (and Catholics)!

The Northeast, with lower religious participation, was the least generous to charities, with the six New England states filling the last six slots among the 50 states. Churches are among the organizations counted as charities by the study, and some states in the Northeast rank in the top 10 when religious giving is not counted.

Go, stingy New Englanders!

The study also found that patterns of charitable giving are colored in political reds and blues.

Of the 10 least generous states, nine voted for Democrat Barack Obama for president in the last election. By contrast, of the 10 most generous states, eight voted for Republican John McCain.

But Peter Panepento, the Chronicle’s assistant managing editor, said that political breakdown likely speaks to a state’s religious makeup, not its prevailing political views. He noted the lowest-ranked Democrat states were also among the least religious, while the top-ranked Republican states were among the more religious.

“I don’t know if I could go out and say it’s a complete Republican-Democrat difference as much as it is different religious attitudes and culture in these states,” he said.

I don't want this to become a political thread, but it seems that an individual's moral code will inform both his religiosity and his political views.

The study was based on Internal Revenue Service records of people who itemized deductions in 2008, the most recent year statistics were available.

By focusing on the percentage given to charity from discretionary income — the money left over after necessities are paid for — the study aimed to remove variables such as the differing costs of living around the country, Panepento said. The data allowed researchers to detail charitable giving down to the ZIP code, he said.

The most generous state was Utah, where residents gave 10.6 percent of their discretionary income to charity.

Go, Utahns!

Next were Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and South Carolina.

Go, Bible Belt!

The least generous was New Hampshire, at 2.5 percent, followed by Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

Whoa! Those New Englanders are wicked stingy!

Here come the funny bits:

In Boston, semi-retired carpenter Stephen Cremins said the traditional New England ideal of self-sufficiency might explain the lower giving, particularly during tight times when people have less to spare.

“Charity begins at home. I’m a big believer of that, you know, you have to take care of yourself before you can help others,” Cremins said.

Um, wouldn't this apply to the folks in the more generous states (the South, Utah)? It's not like New England is the only region suffering from "tight times." And yet these folks are far more generous with their discretionary income. So Mr. Cremins points to a distinction without a difference.

The study found that in the Northeast region, including New England, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York, people gave 4.1 percent of their discretionary income to charity. The percentage was 5.2 percent in the Southern states, a region from Texas east to Delaware and Florida, and including most of the so-called Bible Belt.

The Bible mandates a 10 percent annual donation, or tithe, to the church, and the donation is commonly preached as a way to thank God, care for others and show faith in God’s provision. But it has a greater emphasis in some faiths.

In Mormon teachings, for instance, Latter Day Saints are required to pay a 10 percent tithe to remain church members in good standing, which helps explain the high giving rate in heavily-Mormon Utah.

And it helps explain the higher giving rate in the heavily-Protestant Southern states as well.

In other words, there appears to be a rather strong correlation between religiosity and charitable generosity.

Which is why the rest of the article starts getting a little silly.

Alan Wolfe, a political science professor at Boston College, said it’s wrong to link a state’s religious makeup with its generosity.

Hmm. Mr. Wolfe was, "a member of the collective that put out the Marxist-oriented journal, Kapitalistate, whose pages featured articles by such writers as Poulantzas, Claus Offe, Ralph Miliband, and Bob Jessop. By the early 1980s, Wolfe's politics had become more centrist." He is also "a self-proclaimed atheist."

Golly! I'm sure that a somewhat-reformed Marxist atheist academic from the stingy state of Massachusetts will have an excellent explanation of why people in his neck of the woods are ... the way that they are.

Let's take a look:

People in less religious states are giving in a different way by being more willing to pay higher taxes so the government can equitably distribute superior benefits, Wolfe said.

Um, is there a correlation between "less religious states" and "higher taxes?"

And since when is paying taxes a matter of "willing(ness)?"

And what evidence do we have that the government "equitably distributes" tax funds?

And what evidence do we have that government usage of coercively-procured tax funds amounts to "superior benefits" as compared with charitable contributions from folks less stingy than our resident Marxist-atheist-academic?

And the distribution is based purely on need, rather than religious affiliation or other variables, said Wolfe, also head of the college’s Boisi Center for Religion and Public Life.

Really? Distribution of tax funds to poor folks is based purely on need? No other factors?

What kind of a joke is this Marxist-atheist-academic?

Wolfe said people in less religious states “view the tax money they’re paying not as something that’s forced upon them, but as a recognition that they belong with everyone else, that they’re citizens in the common good. … I think people here believe that when they pay their taxes, they’re being altruistic.”

But people in more religious states pay taxes too. They both pay taxes and make charitable contributions out of their discretionary income. So Mr. Wolfe - like Mr. Cremins before him - points to a distinction without a difference.

Anyhoo, here's the last bit:

When only secular gifts are counted, New York climbs from No. 18 to No. 2 in giving, and Pennsylvania rises from No. 40 to No. 4.

What are "secular gifts," I wonder? What counts? Donations to food banks? Donations to community theatre? And how do we distinguish between a "secular" gift as compared to a gift given to or through a religious group?

And why, exactly, should sectarian gifts be relegated to second-class status? What is it about "secular" charitable donations that make them morally superior to donations borne of religiosity?

Thoughts?

-Smac

[USU78]

Forward, T'varitschi!

If we can only find a way to stop all those Churches from assuaging their bourgeois guilt by doing Mitzvot, the suffering proletariat will finally seethe to boiling, overflow, and bring on the Blessed Revolution[tm]!

[thesometimesaint]

Utah gets more in Federal Tax dollars than it pays in. $1.07 received for every $1.00 sent in.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I agree with most of what the OP laid out, but I guess I don't really consider the tithing I pay as charity because I directly benefit from almost all of its uses. From http://mormon.org/fa...pose-of-tithing tithing is used for the following purposes:

• Constructing temples, chapels, and other buildings.
  
• Providing operating funds for the Church.
  
• Funding the missionary program (This does not include individual missionary expenses.)
  
• Preparing materials used in Church classes and organizations.
  
• Temple work, family history, and many other important Church functions.
  
• Education.
  

Having received a BYU education under scholarship, with the exception of the missionary program, I benefit directly and use all of these programs. That being said, I think it is amazing that so many LDS willingly give 10% and don't want to take away from that, but given what the funds are used for I just don't really consider it charity (speaking for myself). Donations to Fast Offerings and other funds line up more with my view of what charity is.

Edited August 20, 2012 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Zakuska]

Makes you wonder about all the selfrighteous indignation of all the ex-mormon/antis/athiests at the trailer park saying that they became better people and more charitable upon leaving!?

Edited August 20, 2012 by Zakuska

[happy]

I agree with most of what the OP laid out, but I guess I don't really consider the tithing I pay as charity because I directly benefit from almost all of its uses. From http://mormon.org/fa...pose-of-tithing tithing is used for the following purposes:

• Constructing temples, chapels, and other buildings.
  
• Providing operating funds for the Church.
  
• Funding the missionary program (This does not include individual missionary expenses.)
  
• Preparing materials used in Church classes and organizations.
  
• Temple work, family history, and many other important Church functions.
  
• Education.
  

Having received a BYU education under scholarship, with the exception of the missionary program, I benefit directly and use all of these programs. That being said, I think it is amazing that so many LDS willingly give 10% and don't want to take away from that, but given what the funds are used for I just don't really consider it charity (speaking for myself). Donations to Fast Offerings and other funds line up more with my view of what charity is.

Most of those are shared tools that many enjoy without paying tithing, so yes, it is still charity.

[Scott Lloyd]

Utah gets more in Federal Tax dollars than it pays in. $1.07 received for every $1.00 sent in.

I wonder if a correlation can be drawn here.

If Utahns paying all that money in charity itemize their tax returns, they can get a deduction for the charitable donations they make. That would more or less reduce their federal tax burden.

Arguably, donation to charity is as great a contribution to society as paying taxes.

[USU78]

I wonder if a correlation can be drawn here.

If Utahns paying all that money in charity itemize their tax returns, they can get a deduction for the charitable donations they make. That would more or less reduce their federal tax burden.

Arguably, donation to charity is as great a contribution to society as paying taxes.

Arguably, it's greater, since the carrying costs are so much lighter, even given some charities' huge administrative and marketing costs.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I wonder if a correlation can be drawn here.

If Utahns paying all that money in charity itemize their tax returns, they can get a deduction for the charitable donations they make. That would more or less reduce their federal tax burden.

Arguably, donation to charity is as great a contribution to society as paying taxes.

Heck no! We should all be writing checks to the government. I mean after all "you didn't build that".

I can't think of a more charitable thing than to give to the government. Everything they do is run so much more efficient, both in cost and in man hours, than the private sector.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Utah gets more in Federal Tax dollars than it pays in. $1.07 received for every $1.00 sent in.

What does that have to do with any thing dude?

[thesometimesaint]

USU78:

Operating cost for the Social Security Administration are between 1-2% and government workers get paid. No one in the Church gets paid for working on behalf of its charities. I don't know as we can really compare paid work, and non paid charity work. What would we pay a Bishop for distributing Fast Offerings? Other charities have been known to charge 90% or more for their charity work.

[Calm]

Um, wouldn't this apply to the folks in the more generous states (the South, Utah)? It's not like New England is the only region suffering from "tight times." And yet these folks are far more generous with their discretionary income. So Mr. Cremins points to a distinction without a difference.

By focusing on the percentage given to charity from discretionary income — the money left over after necessities are paid for — the study aimed to remove variables such as the differing costs of living around the country

The report corrected for differences in "tightness". It would seem that there might be a different view of what "self-sufficient" means and applies to. Would be interesting to include measures of savings and purchase of luxury items to see where the difference is being spent.

[thesometimesaint]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

Yes we should be all writing checks to the government, based on ability to pay. We all, that have a tax liability, need to do it at the time that the taxes are due and payable. After all taxes are just the just dues we pay to live in a civilized society.

Adam Smith

If the citizens of a state are getting back more than they pay in in taxes. Then taxes aren't a net cost but a net benefit. Someone has to pick up the difference.

[USU78]

USU78:

Operating cost for the Social Security Administration are between 1-2% and government workers get paid. No one in the Church gets paid for working on behalf of its charities. I don't know as we can really compare paid work, and non paid charity work. What would we pay a Bishop for distributing Fast Offerings? Other charities have been known to charge 90% or more for their charity work.

My point: For every "90% or more" outfit, there are dozens if not hundreds more who have very light administrative burdens; and let's not, in analyzing this, leave out the benefits package, including retirement, that those SSA employees get: that usually doesn't get included in such "operating cost" estimates by gov't outfits.

[Verum]

I think its very complicated to include tithes to churches as a measure of people's willingness to pay towards charity. When you consider the amount of money that is actually used to for charitable causes other than church infrastructure and building the institutions and the fact that people's salvation may be at risk if they don't give, including religious donations distorts things when trying to measure "generosity". It would be more interesting just to look at humanitarian aid directly to the poor and the needy. One article points out that Utah does pretty poor when looking at this measure where the United Way of America ranks Utah 48th in the nation.

I will say though that atheists/secularists are lagging in this area. I speculate that its due to their aversion to organize and form communities but I'm not sure.

[Calm]

Utah gets more in Federal Tax dollars than it pays in. $1.07 received for every $1.00 sent in.

CFR please.

Considering how much Utah land (70% IIRC) is owned by the federal government, this seems appropriate.

[Verum]

In other words, there appears to be a rather strong correlation between religiosity and charitable generosity.

Generosity is the habit of giving freely without expecting anything in return.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generosity

If one's eternal well-being is at stake or is coerced by God's command to give 10%, i wouldn't consider that "generous". You could say its money going towards a worthy cause, but not a "generous" giving.

[Scott Lloyd]

If the citizens of a state are getting back more than they pay in in taxes. Then taxes aren't a net cost but a net benefit. Someone has to pick up the difference.

You're missing the point. If Utahns lead the nation in charitable donations, they are benefiting society through their free-will offering, including unpaid volunteer work. I submit that in a host of ways — quantifiable or not — Utahns might be more than picking up the difference.

That said, I agree with Mola that the federal tax Utahns pay, whatever it might be, has little to do with this thread topic.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

It would be more interesting just to look at humanitarian aid directly to the poor and the needy.

IIRC there was a study a little while ago that separated out tithing from other charitable donations for LDS. Will do a search for it if no one else has it available.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

Yes we should be all writing checks to the government, based on ability to pay. We all, that have a tax liability, need to do it at the time that the taxes are due and payable. After all taxes are just the just dues we pay to live in a civilized society.

Adam Smith

If the citizens of a state are getting back more than they pay in in taxes. Then taxes aren't a net cost but a net benefit. Someone has to pick up the difference.

Rofl, so you are aware that the tax burden currently in the US is not spread out very equally. Almost 50% pay no taxes as it is now, in terms of federal tax and that the wealthiest 10% pay almost all of the taxes. I am not talking about food taxes or gas taxes.

I am not sure what you are trying to say as it relates to this thread.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[USU78]

You're missing the point. If Utahns lead the nation in charitable donations, they are benefiting society through their free-will offering, including unpaid volunteer work. I submit that in a host of ways — quantifiable or not — Utahns might be more than picking up the difference.

That said, I agree with Mola that the federal tax Utahns pay, whatever it might be, has little to do with this thread topic.

A large part, as implied, of the federal $$ coming into Utah coffers are in the form of payments in lieu of property taxes to ameliorate the burden on Utah of having so much un-taxable land that Utah has to administer and preserve, at least in part, like the obscene amount of highways across unused and unusable federal lands.

[Grundelwalken]

Operating cost for the Social Security Administration are between 1-2% and government workers get paid.

I really have a hard time believing that this is a "real" number. If so, this is the best run of all government agencies.......... maybe in the history of the world. MW

[Scott Lloyd]

A large part, as implied, of the federal $$ coming into Utah coffers are in the form of payments in lieu of property taxes to ameliorate the burden on Utah of having so much un-taxable land that Utah has to administer and preserve, at least in part, like the obscene amount of highways across unused and unusable federal lands.

Yes, that had occurred to me as well, and I see that calmoriah noted it.

[Grundelwalken]

. One article points out that Utah does pretty poor when looking at this measure where the United Way of America ranks Utah 48th in the nation.

I will say though that atheists/secularists are lagging in this area. I speculate that its due to their aversion to organize and form communities but I'm not sure.

I know that, at least in my case, United Way is way down on my list of places where I will donate. The things they support with their money are not what I would call high priority to my own sense of right and wrong. But the Church does encourage participation so there is a small stipend offered every year., MW

[Scott Lloyd]

I know that, at least in my case, United Way is way down on my list of places where I will donate. The things they support with their money are not what I would call high priority to my own sense of right and wrong. But the Church does encourage participation so there is a small stipend offered every year., MW

While, for many people, United Way might be the sole recipient of their charitable giving, for an average Mormon, it might be one of several recipients competing for the donor's limited resources. So it's not very useful to pick a single charity as a basis for comparison.

Edited August 20, 2012 by Scott Lloyd