Bleeding Heart Tightwads: Liberals are less charitable than Republicans

Memo to GOP: befriend one single scientist or mathematician, if that's still possible. This selecting one data bit for an argument is so GWB/Cheney. Yawn.

According to 2007 data of registered voters, republicans are 35% more likely to make over $100k per year. So, yup, conservative households are much more likely to be in a position to give. SHOCKER.

/thread

Owned by data again. Shucks.

 

Just to back this up, I live in Idaho, which is probably the reddest state in America. Idahos infrastructure would crater if we did not get federal money. Its sad that a state who's core ideals are conservative, are one of the biggest money grubbers from the government. I think 50 to 60 percent of our road budget comes from the US government.

 

Owned by your inability to read!

 

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2682730

According to the study (this article is a retread), the working poor and lower middle class give 30% more as a percentage of income than the wealthy.

Funny.

 

Do they measure income level as well? If I have a million dollars a year I would have no problem giving 20% of it away. If I have only 20000 a year I would be hard pressed to give 200 bucks. In this case, 20% is not really greater than 1%.

 

I don't like the dismissal of church donations. I worked at a church (volunteer) and we helped many people and it was not handouts and it had NOTHING to do with religion. We had bibles available to give out but no one was preaching or pushing it. The main concern was what can the people do to get our help which was basically show up sober, and show improvement. It was awesome to see first hand people changing their lives.

 

bigtexx still can't get over the smackdown he and his ilk were handed on election day.

FAIL.

 

I didn't, I used them to refute texxx's absolute statements about successful people and voting republican, whatever that means anyway. i could use a host of people who support democrats from all walks of life, however it was best refuted by the fact that by texxx's standard of success, the two most successful people voted democrat.

 

The person making the $20,000 would be more likely to donate $200, and that isn't even close. Would they give $4,000? Probably not. If you were a millionaire you probably wouldn't give $200,000. Read Weslinder's post. I think there is something to Southern Hospitality.

 

Strange:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1

People in the highest income group ($200k+) voted more for Obama than McCain.

As did the most educated people (post-grad degrees).

As did college graduates.

What exactly is your measure of "the successful ones"?

 

more than that, you don't report charitable contributions unless you've done more than the std deductions. how many families making the median of 45ishk are donating more than 10-15k?

thus its probably easier to survey rich peoples givings than poor peoples.

 

Did you read the quote you quoted? He said republicans. Repubicans can go off the reservation.

 

Plenty of people making $45,000 itemize. Home Mortgage interest and property taxes allow them to do so, but that doesn't matter. This is based on surveys, not tax returns.

 

Did you read the exit poll? Republicans overwhelmingly voted for McCain.

 

Thanks, wes. I had read this a couple of years ago. let's take a chunk from that (good) read:

"(1) Sioux Falls is rural and religious; half of the population goes to church every week. People in San Francisco make much more money, are predominantly liberal, and just 14 percent of people in San Francisco attend church every week. Liberals are said to care more about helping the poor; so did people in San Francisco give more?
(2) It turns out that this idea that liberals give more…is a myth. Of the top 25 states where people give an above average percent of their income, 24 were red states in the last presidential election.
(3) Arthur Brooks, the author of "Who Really Cares," says that "when you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more." He adds, "And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money.""

(1) Though anecdotal and incomplete, there is a little something to this argument. I work non-profit in San Francisco, which rightly has a reputation as being a tightwad type of city. People give $100's of millions for museums and the arts, but much less for education, the poor, or health outreach. Leaving that aside, it's an incomplete comparison, really, unless you factor in cost of living. How much does a private school cost in Sioux Falls? A house? A loaf of bread? People making under $100k in San Francisco are keeping their budgets very, very tight, due to cost of living. I imagine the same income in Sioux Falls is a different animal.

(1A) What really submarines the anecdote (if that was my goal) is the idea of charitable foundations. The wealthy people I've known in SF (as I fundraise), do not give directly to causes in a way that would show up in this 20/20 type of study. They create private foundations that then do all the giving. A real comparison of the two cities should compare locally grown private foundations and what they give as well.

(2) If we're really talking percentage of income (would still like to see the real figures instead of an oblique reference to figures), that's pretty legit.

(3) This is crap. He can't say "conservative households make less money" when stats like the % making over $100k fly in the face of it. That's what my original point was about. I stick to my point that this author has already made up his mind and is picking and choosing data. If I shouldn't make such abuse of data party-centric, and if I'm being partisan, fair enough. But the current administration elevated it to an art form, and the abuse I cited fits the pattern perfectly.

 

It must really suck to be stuck with myopic political views that have been thoroughly discredited and are no longer relevant.

It leaves one roaming the detritus of their own barren political wilderness.

 

All this tells me is that in the back of their minds Cons feel guilty for advocating a system that harkens back to Dickensian England.

 

bob: I think you are flat out wrong. The author gave the answer in his piece. Giving through the church. He noted that religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. That secular conservatives were the stingiest of the bunch. The church is a brilliant fundraiser. Imagine having your donors come to listen to you every week. And you get to ask them for a donations each time. In front of their friends. And do special mailings. Again -- not belittling the church's work. Just stating what I think should be obvious.

And while the mega-rich may set up foundations (the set up would -- I think -- count as charitable giving, no?) -- the sum of all the great unwashed is what gives the conservatives an edge. Remember a certain presidential candidate who raised record contributions in small bits? Same principle. Lots of mom and pops giving weekly through the church. Those $20/week plus special drive campaigns trump a $200 year end contribution to your favorite charity.

On disposable income. The Sioux Falls people (next time please choose a city that's easier to spell) -- don't make as much either. Yes -- the big cities are more expensive -- but that doesn't stop them from buying up $5 latte's. Chances are the granny on a fixed pension gives more to charity then her grandson with the six figure income. And he has a newer car, more toys, eats out more etc. It aint that the non-religious folks can't afford to give more -- they just don't get around to it.

The conservative/liberal twist is just a grabber. Makes the conservatives feel proud. Shames the liberals. NaNaNa PooPoo. Sure..the author is spinning to get reaction. But I suspect his data is sound. He's just correlating 'conservative' with giving, rather then 'church going' with giving. And since more conservatives are church going -- I guess that's his in.

I suppose if more women are liberals, and women live longer then men, I could write an article stating that liberals live longer then conservatives.

 

That's cool. But it's funny b/c as I read your post, we agree on a lot. But neither of us really have all the data we need for our arguments ... (e.g. cost of living in cities; exactly what transfer to foundation gets counted as what, since I know a lot of those transfers do *not* show up as charitable contributions)... which puts us in a similar boat to the author. I still think he doesn't have the data he needs.

 

B-Bob,

If you want a little bit different group of statistics from, and from a different conservative celebrity (well one of his employees) a try this article from Reason. I can't get you the full set of statistics, but I would assume that you could buy the book (if you're not too much of a tightwad).

I do want to read Brooks' new book about what makes us happy. He says that politically, moderates are the least happy people.