Posted on 11/16/2006 9:03:27 AM PST by Graybeard58
MONTPELIER, Vt. -- New England continues to lag the nation in charitable giving, with upper-income Vermonters and Mainers showing a decline in generosity during the 10 years ending in 2004, according to a study based on federal tax data.
"If those people who are below the national average would give to the average, there would be a lot of money generated into the philanthropic pie," said Martin Cohn, spokesman for the Catalogue for Philanthropy, which compiles an annual "generosity index."
The Needham, Mass.-based nonprofit group issues its annual ranking of states and their residents' charitable giving by using Internal Revenue Service data showing average adjusted gross incomes and average itemized charitable giving.
In 2004, the most recent year for which data were available, New Hampshire ranked at the bottom among states for charitable giving. All other New England states were in the bottom 10, with the exception of Maine, which ranked 33rd.
Cohn called the tax data a "crude" tool with which to examine charitable giving, and not everyone agrees with his group's consistent finding that New England states tend to be less generous than the nation as a whole.
Last year, a group of philanthropic groups around the region issued its own report based on survey data, painting a more positive picture of giving by New Englanders. It said only about a third of taxpayers itemize charitable contributions, so a study based on IRS data presents an incomplete picture.
The New England charities' report said the main difference between residents of the region and people nationally is that New Englanders give less to churches and other religious organizations.
Based on data from the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, the New England charities' report said that "in New England, donors give a lower percentage of their income to religious causes and about the same percentage to secular causes as do donors elsewhere in the U.S. The difference in the total is largely attributable to the difference in religious giving."
The Catalogue for Philanthropy study confirmed that Bible Belt states have been the most generous relative to their residents' incomes, with Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi typically landing in the top five.
The report provided statistics for all taxpayers in each state and a separate set for those with an adjusted gross income of more than $200,000.
One thing was striking among the upper income group: Relative to their wealth, they are less generous than the population as a whole. The average upper-income person nationwide donated 3.8 percent of adjusted gross income to charity in 2004; overall, tax filers reported giving 7.9 percent of their adjusted gross income.
In all six New England states, giving as percentage of income for people making more than $200,000 came in at below the national 3.8 percent figure. Between 1995 and 2004, Maine posted a slight decline in that category, and Vermont saw a larger decline. In 1995, Vermonters making more than $200,000 gave about 4.2 percent of adjusted gross income to charity; by 2004, that had declined to 3.5 percent.
Average 2004 adjusted gross incomes for those making more than $200,000 in New England ranged from $661,000 in Connecticut down to $458,000 in Vermont.
Average adjusted gross incomes for all taxpayers ranged from $73,073 in Connecticut in 2004 down to $42,507 in Maine.
I "give" enough through taxation.
If they'd lower our friggin taxes, maybe we could give more. The way I see it, we are already supporting the poor, why give to charities.
I feel charity should be something we choose to do, not get forced into via taxes. Charity should be through ones church, or social group, like in the old days, not at the point of an IRS/Federal Government gun.
It goes to type: Liberals don't give as much to charity as do conservatives. Liberals would rather use MY money to give to THEIR favorite charities: Lousy public programs to enrich their various constituencies.
You're 100% correct. That's how our Forefathers intended for it to be initially.
so New Englanders are CHEAP? I guess those blue-staters do as I say, NOT as I do! lol
Ditto the above. If we weren't so over taxed and over regulated the cost of living would be lower and we would have more money available to give away.
I agree, but I would also say its fair to point out that the South and West are a lot more religious than the North East. Northeasterners in general seem to buy into Hillary's philosophy of the common good.
Damn Yankees
Yep, and that's exactly the problem.
We sure do have a lot of pretty churches on the town greens here, but they don't mean much anymore to most of the residents.
It's called the, "I gave at the office" syndrome. Heavily taxed states tend to give less than those not as taxed.
Something about having more of our money to donate and all that--who knew?
Need I remind everyone that they are good at giving away OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY, in the form of liberal welfare schemes, if not their own.
I'm not a New Englander but to me this study doesn't mean alot. It's from federal tax data and doesn't take into account people who don't itemize or people like me whose charitable giving is mostly not deductable.
"Yankees rank low in charitable giving"
What about that contract they gave Randy Johnson?
BTW, the title of this article is a bit misleading. The New York Yankees (and Mr. Steinbrenner in particular) are famous for being one of the most charitable organizations in professional sports.
I feel charity should be something we choose to do, not get forced into via taxes.
But taxes allow you to give OTHER people's money to your pet causes.
Owl_Eagle
If what I just wrote made you sad or angry,
it was probably just a joke.
don't call them "liberal," which they're not, namely "generous." Call them "lefties." The book anticipated from that Syracuse University professor (thread a couple of weeks ago on it)demolishes the public image of the compassionate left. Meanwhile, can we say that the real problem with the phrase "compassionate conservative " is that it is redundant?
"Damn Yankees"
Hmmm, I paid almost $15,000.00 last year in property taxes alone. 'Nuff said. I give plenty.
Yankees have long had a reputation as skinflints.`
But I think this is mostly Liberal Syndrome. Rich limousine liberals just don't give to charity. Instead, they raise somebody else's taxes.
We all remember that Al Gore, before somebody clued him in, gave something like $200 to charity while he was Vice President, even though he's a millionaire many times over with massive holdings of Occidental Petroleum stock, among others.
And John Kerry, with 5 houses and every luxury, also gave very little, while his wife seemingly only gives to Communist organizations that subvert the country and work toward raising taxes. And the Kerrys together, although they are billionaires, pay very little in taxes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.