Why do democrats not donate money to the poor and needy as much as republicans?

[Wildtree]

*looks at posters*

Counts out Wildtree

yeah, the usual group preparing the bisquits to get soggy..im out.

Thanks. I actually cherish you guys for your donation mania. It's awesome, and I've never seen a nation that willing on that aspect.. Yet I still believe the ppl stuffing holes that ought to be filled by the govt.

[taliey]

It's disingenuous to suggest these numbers represent a moral divide. You're ignoring some extremely important factors:
- Charitable donations provide tax deductions (it's probably safe to say giving money so you can avoid giving more money later is not a moral action)
- Many donations are considered charity that provide no direct benefit to anyone in need (donations to churches and schools, for example) -- note the difference between donating to a church vs donating to a charity run by a church
- Most of the wealthiest people in the world, and certainly in the US, are conservative, and some of them provide massive donations (either when they die, or at regular intervals) that non-1%ers could never compete with in shear quantity. This will disproportionately sway the statistics.
- Many states have swing of less than 60-40 for one political affiliation or another and cannot rightly be called Democrat or Republican states, and so all statistics generated in those states cannot reliably be affiliated with one political party over another.

If you want to weigh the statistics in the OP with respect to these factors, you may see a significantly different outcome.

Some more on the tax comment.

Charitable contributions are split into 3 brackets: 50% ceiling, 30% ceiling, and 20% ceiling.

Charitable contributions are a deduction from taxable income (which is usually, Gross Income - Exclusions - Deductions for AGI = AGI - Deductions from AGI = Taxable Income), and cannot exceed more than either of the 3 listed brackets.

[Deleted]

Maybe they feel guilty about supporting the republicans.

Maybe there are more poor people. Maybe there is less support and more need for donations in states governed by republics.


correlation =/= causation

[Theinquisition]

God your whining gets old.

You're purposely missing the point im making.

Tax money isn't being more effeciently used to help the poor than private donations, when we look at it dollar to dollar. It's horse shit to say that...5$ of money paid in taxes will be any more better spent at helping the needy than 5$ to a local or NPO charity.

Hell even by using Ruks numbers 33% is still far more of a % of total money that would be used to help the poor than the % that the gov't would appropriate.

You guys say "well stupid pastor gets that money for his house pffft" okay valid concern, I agree. however isn't it crap to pay a basketball coach at a college millions of dollars a year and think its okay?

[Mihalik]

*looks at posters*

Counts out Wildtree

yeah, the usual group preparing the bisquits to get soggy..im out.

What you are doing is the equivalent of a 7 year old that shuts his ears and goes lalalalalala, when he doesn't like what he is being told. When will you grow up?

[spanishninja]

We still need a lot more data to have meaningful comparison.
For a person with 200k a year 10% donation is easier doable than for a person with 20k..

and yet the graph shows that the poorest states are giving more of their incomes than the richest ones. You saying that people in New Hampshire are struggling to make ends meet and that's why they can't fork over more than 3%?

[taliey]

You're purposely missing the point im making.

Tax money isn't being more effeciently used to help the poor than private donations, when we look at it dollar to dollar. It's horse shit to say that...5$ of money paid in taxes will be any more better spent at helping the needy than 5$ to a local or NPO charity.

Hell even by using Ruks numbers 33% is still far more of a % of total money that would be used to help the poor than the % that the gov't would appropriate.

You guys say "well stupid pastor gets that money for his house pffft" okay valid concern, I agree. however isn't it crap to pay a basketball coach at a college millions of dollars a year and think its okay?

Have you ever heard of Charity Navigator? Its pretty much the Better Business Bureau of Charities.

Complimentary link: http://www.charitynavigator.org/

[Rukentuts]

You're purposely missing the point im making.

Tax money isn't being more effeciently used to help the poor than private donations, when we look at it dollar to dollar. It's horse shit to say that...5$ of money paid in taxes will be any more better spent at helping the needy than 5$ to a local or NPO charity.

Hell even by using Ruks numbers 33% is still far more of a % of total money that would be used to help the poor than the % that the gov't would appropriate.

You guys say "well stupid pastor gets that money for his house pffft" okay valid concern, I agree. however isn't it crap to pay a basketball coach at a college millions of dollars a year and think its okay?

This is comparisons of apples and oranges. If you're going to compare it somewhat properly, you'd only examine the bureaucratic costs of programs themselves, not taxes overall.

[Wells]

You're purposely missing the point im making.

Tax money isn't being more effeciently used to help the poor than private donations, when we look at it dollar to dollar. It's horse shit to say that...5$ of money paid in taxes will be any more better spent at helping the needy than 5$ to a local or NPO charity.

Hell even by using Ruks numbers 33% is still far more of a % of total money that would be used to help the poor than the % that the gov't would appropriate.

You guys say "well stupid pastor gets that money for his house pffft" okay valid concern, I agree. however isn't it crap to pay a basketball coach at a college millions of dollars a year and think its okay?

No one is arguing that. We're saying that chart doesn't mean much because not all charitable giving is made equal. You can't say "this place gives X and this place gives X1.5, therefor they're doing more". You're off arguing the same about taxes, but no one is saying otherwise.

[Mihalik]

You're purposely missing the point im making.

Tax money isn't being more effeciently used to help the poor than private donations, when we look at it dollar to dollar. It's horse shit to say that...5$ of money paid in taxes will be any more better spent at helping the needy than 5$ to a local or NPO charity.

Hell even by using Ruks numbers 33% is still far more of a % of total money that would be used to help the poor than the % that the gov't would appropriate.

And you are totally missing the point why local and small charities don't work. At all. Their impact is minimal. Worse then minimal. Near total sum zero.

[Theinquisition]

What you are doing is the equivalent of a 7 year old that shuts his ears and goes lalalalalala, when he doesn't like what he is being told. When will you grow up?

I just noticed that it wasn't going to be a balanced debate, why fustrate myself?

[Garnier Fructis]

You guys say "well stupid pastor gets that money for his house pffft" okay valid concern, I agree. however isn't it crap to pay a basketball coach at a college millions of dollars a year and think its okay?

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB122853304793584959

Auburn University football coach Tommy Tuberville, who resigned last week, was paid more than $2 million a year, or about four times what President Jay Gogue makes. But only $235,000 of Mr. Tuberville's salary came from the university. About $1.5 million was paid from the $51.3 million multimedia and marketing-rights contract Auburn has with ISP Sports. That's about on par. On average, a top college coach's base salary accounts for only about 25% of his total compensation.

While these salaries may seem exorbitant, you must factor in the revenues from ticket sales, concessions, souvenirs and the like. While Mr. Tuberbille and his staff earned a collective $5 million in annual salary, that's just 10% of Auburn's entire athletic budget. With football the predominant revenue-generating sport, the return on their salary is close to tenfold. When Auburn went to the 2007 Chick-fil-A Bowl, the one-day payout was $2.8 million.

Their base salary is still too high though.

[Theinquisition]

And you are totally missing the point why local and small charities don't work. At all. Their impact is minimal. Worse then minimal. Near total sum zero.

IDK, I imagine the Kids at the YMCA that I volunteer at and donate money to would disagree, especially when i see the direct impact. If everyone donated locally, it would make a huge difference nationwide, and guarantee that the money would be best spent helping the local community with its specific needs.

Skip to 1:30...I share his opinion about charities.

[Zdrasti]

Few quick comments. Religious institutions are included in this metric (hence why it skews so heavily towards the South) and they have a lot of expenses other than just helping the needy. Plus in a lot of cases, people feel it is their obligation to give a fraction of their paycheck to the church. It would be interesting to see how generous people are if you removing tithing. Second, the metric is as % of income and I wonder how the actual numbers work out.

[NineSpine]

You're purposely missing the point im making.

Tax money isn't being more effeciently used to help the poor than private donations, when we look at it dollar to dollar. It's horse shit to say that...5$ of money paid in taxes will be any more better spent at helping the needy than 5$ to a local or NPO charity.

Hell even by using Ruks numbers 33% is still far more of a % of total money that would be used to help the poor than the % that the gov't would appropriate.

You guys say "well stupid pastor gets that money for his house pffft" okay valid concern, I agree. however isn't it crap to pay a basketball coach at a college millions of dollars a year and think its okay?

The comparison is silly and pointless. Roads help the poor. The police (sometimes) help the poor. Laws against fraud help the poor. All of those cost money, and can't be compared to charity.

- - - Updated - - -

IDK, I imagine the Kids at the YMCA that I volunteer at and donate money to would disagree, especially when i see the direct impact. If everyone donated locally, it would make a huge difference nationwide, and guarantee that the money would be best spent helping the local community with its specific needs.

There's such a thing as facts, and your personal anecdotes won't overwrite the numbers.

[stabetha]

because more government is the answer to everything.

[taliey]

IDK, I imagine the Kids at the YMCA that I volunteer at and donate money to would disagree, especially when i see the direct impact. If everyone donated locally, it would make a huge difference nationwide, and guarantee that the money would be best spent helping the local community with its specific needs.

Skip to 1:30...I share his opinion about charities.

Are we even talking about the same 'charity?'

You're talking about volunteering at the YMCA, and we're (including Grummgug) are talking about charity as a measure against poverty.

[NineSpine]

You're purposely missing the point im making.

Tax money isn't being more effeciently used to help the poor than private donations, when we look at it dollar to dollar. It's horse shit to say that...5$ of money paid in taxes will be any more better spent at helping the needy than 5$ to a local or NPO charity.

Hell even by using Ruks numbers 33% is still far more of a % of total money that would be used to help the poor than the % that the gov't would appropriate.

You guys say "well stupid pastor gets that money for his house pffft" okay valid concern, I agree. however isn't it crap to pay a basketball coach at a college millions of dollars a year and think its okay?

The basketball coach is generating huge amounts of income for the university. Those sports programs are self-supporting and then some.

[Moralgy]

So that chart included donations to a church? The two churches I have gone to in my life used the donations for nothing more than church upkeep, which I know isn't every church, but still, that really should not be included.

[taliey]

The basketball coach is generating huge amounts of income for the university. Those sports programs are self-supporting and then some.

To the point that the colleges and the NCAA are going out of their way to recruit athletes to maintain that cash inflow.

The goals of the NCAA and the university are pretty much at odds with one another, whereas one is focused on collegiate sports and athletics, and the other one is focused on academics and education.