Why "blue states" are cheap
Re: "Blue and Cheap", editorial, Rocky Mountain News, Nov. 11, 2004
It's not surprising that blue states give less money to charity than the income-adjusted American average. The fatal flaw in the "altruistic" liberal position is that it believes government should take care of most problems. "Conservatives" believe in self-reliance but also in charity for those who truly can't take care of themselves. Thus, the blue states give less because they believe in Big Brother, and the red states give more because they believe in citizen involvement.
Unfortunately, Big Brother tax rates squeeze our financial capacity to give to charities. In the 1980s, charitable giving went up dramatically as Reagan cut income tax rates, much to the suprise of the blue state residents who believe everyone is selfish (are they projecting?) and who can't imagine anything good being done without government being involved.
As for Colorado being on the "cheap" list, that's not a big surprise either: Given the results of the state and federal Senate elections here, I'd argue we're not nearly as "red" as we used to be.
| Print article | This entry was posted by Rossputin on 11/11/04 at 05:34:49 pm . Follow any responses to this post through RSS 2.0. |
Yours truly
-
Following Obama's Economic Policies
Facebook NetworkedBlogs
XML Feeds
11/18/04 @ 09:26:40 pm
Ross:
There are a lot of possible explanations for this phenomena, but the two I would suggest are most plausible are:
1) Blue states have a larger percentage of wealthy people; philantropic giving is unfortunately inversely proportional to net worth. (Although, like taxes, the top few percent do contribute a huge amount)
2) 3/4 of philanthropic support to secular organizations comes from those who give to religious congregations. (And the Bible Belt has a distinctly red hue.)
My suspicion is that one's political affiliation has less to do with their propensity to give than other factors.
--Tom