Conservatives Are Far More Generous Than Liberals

Not true. I'm sorry you liberals are having a hard time with this but the truth is the poorest states give more and the wealthier ones give less. Hey it's y'all who say the rich are greedy and stingy I guess y'all are right... It's just those rich greedy stingys are blue, not red. This has been this way for years. I know this because locally this came out after hurricane Katrina about Mississippi giving the most at that time when the rich blue states were itching about giving federal money to Mississippi and Louisiana to rebuild. So there.

Red state, blue state--but it doesn't go in to "who" gives. Democrats may give more percentage-wise in a particular state even if it voted 51% red (and vice versa).

And the need is not as great in socialist countries--in some cases it is non-existent--so charities are not needed as much.

It is very efficient to deliver services through the government. In the first place, there are economies of scale. In the second place, there is a wider pool of people contributing (through taxes). Social Security, Medicare and the VA have extremely low administrative costs--compare that to 20% overhead for private health insurance companies.

In Catholicism, rich churches help support inner city and rural churches--to an extent. But in non-denominational and evangelical churches, there is much less revenue sharing. The money may be coming into the rich churches, who will do things to help poor people nearby (and try to convert them while they're at it), but a poor neighborhood that isn't in striking distance of one of these rich churches may have desperately poor people--and no resources to help them. That wouldn't happen with a government program.

Both government social programs and private charity is needed. But the private charities can't handle all the need--and we've seen how tax breaks to billionaires have fattened the coffers of charities--LOL!

JimR-OCDS said:

All I can say is, when charity is forced, its not charity.

The data taken from 1040 Tax returns, can't determine the motive for the charitable deduction but its a know fact that Mormons do in fact, take 10% from a members income for charity. My friends are Mormons BTW and they have to report their income to their church.

I merely reported the various reasons of why there is a difference between conservative believers and non-believers and why the article shows that the State of Utah has the most charitable people compared to other states.

There are variables in all the cases, and using 1040 data alone is flawed.

Jim

Click to expand...

No one is forced to donate anything by a church. Even if a church insists on that as a requirement for membership, they can always leave the church. But usually the "forcing" is more along the lines of peer pressure. And if we call that forcing, there are all sorts of other charities that people donate to to impress their friends because of pressure.

I just don't see this sort of analysis as being useful on the level of society. To discuss how praiseworthy an individual's actions are, sure, the Widow's Mite is worth more than the bragged about donations of the scribes and pharisees. But if we want to address questions like "is this group more charitable than that one" such an analysis is no longer possible. Of course, we might want to ask ourselves how valuable that sort of question is in the first place.

MoonlessNight said:

No one is forced to donate anything by a church. Even if a church insists on that as a requirement for membership, they can always leave the church. But usually the "forcing" is more along the lines of peer pressure. And if we call that forcing, there are all sorts of other charities that people donate to to impress their friends because of pressure.

I just don't see this sort of analysis as being useful on the level of society. To discuss how praiseworthy an individual's actions are, sure, the Widow's Mite is worth more than the bragged about donations of the scribes and pharisees. But if we want to address questions like "is this group more charitable than that one" such an analysis is no longer possible. Of course, we might want to ask ourselves how valuable that sort of question is in the first place.

Click to expand...

I'll bite.

I think that it is very interesting to look at percentage donations by income group. There is a great lesson when we understand that the poorest among us do indeed give the most.

mark46 said:

Most of what you see is that "conservatives" give to their churches.

Click to expand...

siltation needed?

LoAmmi said:

Oh, I don't say that Conservatives are that. Just that the puppet masters of the Republican party are that. The base for Conservatives tend to be people who are compelled by religion to give, and so they do. That is not meant to be a disparaging.

Click to expand...

that's an interesting opinion on the matter.
On the other hand i could also tell of a friend whose Jewish synagog tells her what she is expected to give.
She decided to change synagogs as a result.

what i've found is that what a person gives is usually decided by three things;
1. if they know the difference between a need and a want.
2. if they hold money with an open hand or a closed fist.
3. who they see as the source of those funds: themselves or God.

please notice that how much money a person has
does not factor into how they use the money that they have.

I just don't get it... I would think since it's all about the poor, one would think one would be happy to see anyone giving but if it's a red it's going to be downplayed. So much for it being all about the poor, huh? And I thought you people were all about the stats and charts and graphs... no so much when it does,'t say what you want it to say.

But the point is still being missed. It's the poor states that are more giving than the richer ones and the poorer states are red as where the richer ones are staunchly blue. Can't argue with the numbers. It's not the reds who are rich greedy white men. It's you blues who are rich greedy white & black men and one rich greedy immoral, possibly murderess who's going to jail, white women. So in the spirit of the blues thinking they have the market cornered on being the non immoral, non racist, non greedy, non white, non gender specific, non rich party, stop actually being those things, okay. Because blues are those things and more.

pdudgeon said:

that's an interesting opinion on the matter.
On the other hand i could also tell of a friend whose Jewish synagog tells her what she is expected to give.
She decided to change synagogs as a result.

what i've found is that what a person gives is usually decided by three things;
1. if they know the difference between a need and a want.
2. if they hold money with an open hand or a closed fist.
3. who they see as the source of those funds: themselves or God.

please notice that how much money a person has
does not factor into how they use the money that they have.

Click to expand...

This is no big mystery. If you live in the real world, like I do, one would know that poor ppl are the ones who gives because they know what it is to be in need and to be poor. That is the TRUTH and if one person tries to argue against this i'll know they live in some ivory tower somewhere so out of touch with the poor or they are skewing the reality due to some agenda they have. The people who work hard for what they have are far more generous because they know what it is to struggle and the richer ones are hanging on the their wealth with dear life, can't part with a dollar, and it is not surprising that Mississippi that is a poor state is more generous the those northern states that are all democrat.

Look at those stats. People in poor states give a higher percent of their income or net worth than wealthier people do. Duh! People in the Bible Belt tithe more than people in other areas. Duh! Conservatives give more because they have way more money. Another Duh! (Don't let the higher average income for liberals throw you off. More liberals fall into the middle class, whereas on the conservative side are a lot of low income households and the 10% who are multi-millionaires and billionaires.)

The Koch brothers give millions more than I do to charity, and to politicians, because they are filthy rich. Duh, again. But I doubt that the Koch brothers spend much of their time at food pantries, at homeless shelters, or collecting and delivering warm clothing and blankets to refugee families, or spending a week or two each year on a mission to the Mississippi Delta or Central America. So perhaps those liberals give more of their time and of themselves than they do money. Which one is more Gospel oriented? A final Duh!

both time and money are needed.
we're formed by God to be balanced, and that includes our giving.

Supporting policies that insure that the poor and elderly have income and health care they can depend on, that they don't have to beg for or go to a church and let evangelizers wash their feet for, is charitable as well.

I live in a red state, and the poor people start making the rounds at the churches as the month wears thin. The immigrants, of course, are hardest hit, because any agency that gets government funding (e.g. the food pantry) can't help them because they're undocumented. Churches will give to anyone, but their only reliable source if they don't have an off-the-books job is the Salvation Army, which gives out food once a month.

I know that poor people are very generous, and very generous to one another. I've never experienced poverty, because even when my husband was unemployed the severance pay covered it (except for about one and a half months, I think). But I've had friends in all sorts of economic circumstances, have lived in a lot of places, and have gone on mission trips, so I've seen poverty first hand. I've helped friends through difficult circumstances, too, which is the kind of charity that isn't reported. I'm sure you all have, too.

Once I sent a Wal-Mart gift card anonymously to a friend at Christmas, taking pains to hide my identity (driving to a different post office, typing the envelope, etc.) She and her children visited us at Christmas for dessert. I didn't have any gifts for her because I didn't want her to feel embarrassed that she couldn't reciprocate, but when she arrived she had taken part of the Wal-Mart GC and gotten gifts for the five of us. Yes, the poor are generous.

MoonlessNight said:

No one is forced to donate anything by a church. .

Click to expand...

Actually, some do force their members to donate 10% of their income, and its taken right from their checking account.

Sure, they don't have to give it, but then, they're also not allowed into the church.

Of course most do so willingly, but its still not a "free will offering," as we have in the Catholic Church.

And the donations are tax deductible.

Jim

benedictaoo said:

But the point is still being missed. It's the poor states that are more giving than the richer ones and the poorer states are red as where the richer ones are staunchly blue. Can't argue with the numbers. It's not the reds who are rich greedy white men. It's you blues who are rich greedy white & black men and one rich greedy immoral, possibly murderess who's going to jail, white women. So in the spirit of the blues thinking they have the market cornered on being the non immoral, non racist, non greedy, non white, non gender specific, non rich party, stop actually being those things, okay. Because blues are those things and more.

Click to expand...

Except that the chart presented earlier, Utah was at the top of the list of states, and Utah is hardly a poor state.

It is heavily populated by Mormons who are required to give 10% to the church.

Jim

benedictaoo said:

But the point is still being missed. It's the poor states that are more giving than the richer ones and the poorer states are red as where the richer ones are staunchly blue. Can't argue with the numbers. It's not the reds who are rich greedy white men. It's you blues who are rich greedy white & black men and one rich greedy immoral, possibly murderess who's going to jail, white women. So in the spirit of the blues thinking they have the market cornered on being the non immoral, non racist, non greedy, non white, non gender specific, non rich party, stop actually being those things, okay. Because blues are those things and more.

Click to expand...

It is poor people who give more. The discussion would be a bit clear if we didn't think that states gave money, rather than people.

And as Jim pointed out, Utah is NOT a poor state.

dogs4thewin said:

However Utah does happen to usually be a RED state.

Click to expand...

Yes