Hmm, interesting ranking of the 50 states by their generosity. What's also interesting is that the top 25 have something in common. Generosity Index 2004
(1) This chart blows ass (2) The charity almost certainly counts "chartiable deductions" including Oral Roberts University and Jim Bakker's gay hookers (3) This chart seriously sucks dong (4) It's impossible for any state having something resembling an acceptable average income rank to do well in that stupid-ass "generosity gap" rating (5) Red states are apparently all poor as rock salt (6) You'd really have to be some kind of idiot to take this chart at face value (7) This chart blows dead goats (8) Not really a very good chart EDIT (9) This has nothing to do with Election 2004 (10) Didn't you try to trot our a similar chart last year? (11) This chart still blows dead goats (12) Whichever naziblogger you cribbed this from ought to be shot for the good of the gene pool (13) Since the chart really sucks, and all (14) I mean, really sucks (15) Hard
I remember the last time Ian trotted this garbage out. Who was it who called it "the dumbest thread Ian has ever started, including the one in which he says that Saddam Hussein is dead"?
You guys do realize this isn't a partisan organization? Greedy Democrats. Since the Kerry's only paid 12% taxes last year, curious as to how much they gave to charity. Just for the record, the Heinz-Kerry's paid at a rate about 2.5 X LESS than a person making $30,000 a year.
Letting your neighbor use your outhouse because he is currently using his to make moonshine is not generosity. *I notice your state is at the bottom of the index. Maybe you could follow the rest of your statesman and stop giving us **** threads like this.
Are you saying that rich people should pay more to the gvt? I can't figure out what else you might be saying. Damn socialist.
Whenever I read somebody saying "these stats blow chunks" without explaining exactly why said statistics blow said chunks, I'm skeptical. So I read their methodology page. Frankly they're right, it blows chunks, for two main reasons. 1. The authors did this to prove a point that they personally hold: that New Englanders should give away more money. So they concocted an "index" that proves how ungiving they really are. 2. There is massive self-selection bias going on here. The underlying numbers for adjusted gross income are for all returns, but the "giving" rank is based only on those who itemize deductions. The only people who itemize are those who have enough individual deductions to do so. Who are those people, generally? -- Those who pay a lot of mortgage interest -- Those who pay a lot of state and local taxes -- Those who give away a lot of money If you live in Wyoming, your state taxes are zero, your property taxes are a pittance, and your land is cheap so your mortgage interest is low as well. So why do you itemize? Charitable donations, most likely. The only itemizers in Wyoming are the big givers -- good for them, but not indicative of the entire state. In a state like Massachusetts, taxes are higher and mortgages (and hence mortgage interest) are bigger, because unlike Wyoming and Utah, people actually want to live in Massachusetts. So the list of itemizers includes both generous people and cheapskates. Another idiotic attempt to make the red state people look morally superior to the blue state people. Thank Zeus that the red staters can still feel better about themselves after reading this "index" because they lack the mental capacity to understand just how much of it is statistical bullcrap.
Hey, they have to have some way to feel OK given their higher rates of poverty, divorce, teen pregnancy and other real world measures of immoral behavior.
I agree with obie. The serious problem in regards to this index is that it, unless it uses unreliable surveys, they would have to get their data from tax returns. How many people give money to charitable organizations, but don't have enough deductions to get past the standard deduction, but don't itemize? How much that would change the results, I don't know.
Thanks for that Ian. Excellent chart. Keep them coming and maybe someday, Loney's head really WILL explode.
If only your link proved such, which it doesn't. Instead of admitting that the facts are not what you originally claimed, you're changing the facts to fit your opinion. How very Republican of you.
This aspect is trivial in comparison with the shockingly idiotic Generosity Index formula. For example, if people in CT gave 100% of their income to charity and people from MS gave 0%, they would be classified as equally generous. While one can argue about the giving rank on various grounds, the generousity index is totally rigged to make poor Republican states look generous.
Zogby was wrong. See, that wasn't so hard. Shame you can't do that when presented with a similar situation. Maybe it's genetic?
He gave Kerry over 300 electoral votes IIRC. Was he counting California twice? His polling license thingee should be revoked.
Do you ever NOT use the word "fVck" in any of your posts? The Heinz-Kerry's pay at a lower rate of taxes than many low-income households. What's untrue there? Read the thread, links are there.
What's untrue? Your statement. Lets read it again: Now, for that to be true, a person making $30,000 would have to pay 29% of his income in taxes (29% being slightly less than 12*2.5). Boy, that does sound bad. Except, its completely untrue. Using my 2001-2002 version of the Code (the only one I have handy), which is of course conservative, because it doesn't take into account all of Bush's tax cuts, an unmarried person making $30,000.00 will pay $4,057.5 + 27.5% of the excess over 27,050.00. So, a single person making $30,000.00 per year would only pay $4,868.75 in Federal Income taxes. That's 16.2%! And I haven't even included the standard deduction! But lets actually do that - lets look at the real tax burden. After a standard deduction, and an exemption for oneself, the total is decreased by $7,700.00 So, in fact, a person making $30,000.00 per year, would only be paying taxes on $22,300.00 of income! That's $3,405.00. So, with tax liability of $3,405.00, a person making $30,000.00 actually only pays 11.35% in Federal Income taxes. That's less than Theresa Heinz, since 11.35 is less than 12. So you're pathetically, sadly, and utterly wrong. Completely. You're spreading your intellectual faeces over my walls and calling it paint. Of course, this whole discussion is moot, as Theresa Heinz Kerry paid only 12% due to her investment in muny bonds, for the most part, as a means of delaying taxation on income. If the person making $30,000.00 per year made most of that money from muny bonds, he'd pay even less taxes. She makes her taxes on capital gains - that's why she pays less. Of course, this fact is carefully ignored.