Paul L. Caron
Dean


Saturday, October 18, 2014

Red States Are More Generous Than Blue States

2012Chronicle of Philanthropy, How America Gives:

Using the IRS data, The Chronicle was able to track gifts to charity at the state, county, metropolitan-area, and ZIP code levels. The data were for gifts to charity among taxpayers who itemize deductions on their tax forms. It captured $180-billion that was given to charity in 2012, or about 80 percent of the total amount given to charity as tabulated by "Giving USA."

In How States Compare and How They Voted in the 2012 Election, the Chronicle of Philanthropy ranked the states by giving as a percentage of adjusted gross income.  The 17 states that gave the most to charity all voted for Mitt Romney in 2012, while 15 of the 17 states that gave the least to charity voted for President Obama:


Red

Blue

https://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2014/10/red-states-are-more-generous-.html

Tax | Permalink

Comments

Ok now take out donations to Religious organizations and lets see it. That is the issue with these statistics, when you leave out tithings and other religious based "charitable donations" the rankings change

Posted by: Ron M | Oct 18, 2014 10:38:44 AM

Ron,

Why, exactly, should we take out donations to religious organizations, which fund soup kitchens, financial assistance to the needy, battered women homes, felon rehabilitation programs, etc., Have you any specific data showing that these donations do not result in charitable works at at least the same rates as secular charitable organizations? I know of scores of non-religious administratively bloated "charities" that do very little in terms real good. Should they not count either?

Posted by: Anon | Oct 18, 2014 1:58:25 PM

Churches are NOT charities.

Posted by: dhusk | Oct 18, 2014 4:16:35 PM

Maybe since many of those states refused Medicare expansion and fired many civil employees there is a greater need for charity, and maybe the charity is actually being donated by Democrats living in those unfortunate states.

Posted by: John | Oct 18, 2014 4:38:58 PM

It's really no way to track this. Not all people write off every charity on their taxes. I been donating for years(even a used car), but have never wrote anything off, because it just seems petty.

Posted by: Adrian Williams | Oct 18, 2014 4:43:06 PM

"I know of scores of non-religious administratively bloated "charities" that do very little in terms real good. Should they not count either?"

Since some charities are scams where most of the money goes to support the charity and the people who run it, it is ok for churches to be run as scams?

Posted by: MonkeyBoy | Oct 18, 2014 5:26:46 PM

Maybe red state taxpayers are just taking more chances with padding their deductions.

Posted by: Bob Kamman | Oct 19, 2014 4:46:17 AM

Why eliminate tithing and donations to religious organizations? Better still would be to break out the statistics by percentages, and have a link to a site that rates the intermediary on how efficient they are on passing the donation through to those in need who are served.

Posted by: Doug Hayden | Oct 19, 2014 6:48:54 AM

How much of that "Charity" is actually given to 501c3 tax exempt advocacy groups? You know, the allegedly non-political political groups that launder money for 501c4's?

Posted by: Dan-in-PA | Oct 19, 2014 11:55:55 AM

Utah, top of the list, required by religion to donate a set percentage of wealth to the church. Tithes should not count. People are not giving because they are generous they are giving because they are required to remain part of an organization.

Posted by: Lew | Oct 19, 2014 7:50:47 PM

The ignorance on this comment board is astounding for an academic tax blog. I hope none of these posters are actually entrusted with teaching tax law.

"Churches are not Charities" – dhusk

Actually, churches are, by definition, charities (see IRC 170). Seriously…you should look it up.

“It's really no way to track this. Not all people write off every charity on their taxes. I been donating for years(even a used car), but have never wrote anything off, because it just seems petty.” – Adrian

While not everyone writes off their charitable deductions, this does not affect the overall integrity of the study unless a higher percentage of people who fail to claim their proper tax deductions live in blue states than red states. So absent a systematic issue where Democrats are less capable of understanding and applying the tax code than Republicans this issue really has no effect on the conclusions of the study. As a side note, when Mitt Romney failed to claim some of his charitable deductions so that his effective tax rate didn’t fall below 20%, he was accused by many people on the left of cheating on his taxes. According to that logic, you, Adrian, are a tax cheat (not saying I agree with it, just pointing out the flawed logic).

“Maybe Red states are just taking more chances with padding their deductions than blue states.” –Bob Kamman

Wow. Even if you are in the 39.6% federal income tax bracket (the highest bracket where the deduction is worth the most), it costs you $1 of cash or property to get a deduction that is only worth $.39. If I sold you an investment scheme where you paid me $1000 today and I would agree to give you back $396 on April 15th of next year (with no interest and subject to a whole laundry list of possible reductions), does that sound like an investment strategy that would “pad” your portfolio?

“Utah, top of the list, required by religion to donate a set percentage of wealth to the church.” -Lew

That’s misleading for several reasons, but I’ll just list a few: 1st, Tithing is not based on wealth but income, 2nd, tithing is not “required” to remain a member of the LDS faith but, rather, is an expectation of membership (i.e., failure to tithe does not result in excommunication), 3rd, just because you pay a tithe in part to fulfill a commandment/expectation of a religion, that does not remove the donation of those funds from being acts of generosity. The hundreds of millions of people who have received assistance in some form or another from the LDS church and its many charities would disagree with your assessment that funds paid to the LDS church are not charitable. You really should look up the LDS faith’s involvement in Hurricane Sandy, Hurricane Katrina, the Indonesian Tsunami, the Japan Earthquake/Tsunami, etc., before opining that donations to the LDS church should not be entitled to the charitable donation deduction.

Posted by: John S. Treu | Oct 20, 2014 5:02:09 AM

Are we really going to do the semantics dance in regard to “required” and “expected”? I think most people with any passing association with the LDS faith knows the consequences of not tithing. It is some serious circular logic using the IRC to prove that a church is a charity, when the debate is whether the IRC should include churches as charities. Without putting words in the prior posters mouth, I believe when most people refer to churches as not charities it is because of why they are established. Churches are established to spread and teach a faith. When you give to the Salvation Army it is not with the expectation that you will then be requesting services from them that Sunday. When you give to your church it is to help keep them there for your spiritual needs. Churches may do good, charitable works outside of their mission to spread their religion, but no church is required to meet any sort of charitable work threshold to be considered a charity. Many small churches across America operate on a subsistence level and provide nothing outside of church services, yet tithing to that church is considered a charitable donation. I do a lot of good work; perhaps I should have my wages tax-free? Or is it proper to separate the charitable work from the non-charitable wages? Just like we should separate the charitable tithing to soup kitchens, disaster relief, etc. from the day-to-day operation of the church tithing.

Posted by: Daniel | Oct 20, 2014 6:08:27 AM

Now let's rank the red states by how much they take in federal aid vs how much they pay in taxes.

Posted by: rogeld | Oct 20, 2014 7:31:31 AM

Daniel:
The mistake in the logic of those who claim that churches are not charities is based on the assumption that there is no societal value to the dissemination of religiosity. What the authors of the charitable contributions deduction found in Section 170 apparently understood that so many do not today is that churches do A LOT of good, not in spite of the religious nature of their services, but especially because of it. Aside from the contributions to disaster relief and assistance to the poor efforts that John and others have mentioned, most churches also encourage their members to adopt and uphold morals and convictions that are a stabilizing force in society, including family values, abiding by the law, self-sufficiency, etc.

As for your question of whether the good work you do should be tax-free, I’m not sure how your question relates. Just because the contributions people make to fund the operations of churches results in a deduction (if indeed they are sufficient to warrant the deduction because such figures exceed the standard deduction amount in a given tax year), that does not mean that the income of those who are paid by such funding receive their wages tax-free. And even if they were, the LDS faith is the last place you want to point to in making such a complaint, because the LDS faith functions under a volunteer clergy system.

Now, if you insist that there are some churches that do not deserve to be considered charities, perhaps what you should be arguing for is a more fine-tuned definition of which churches may qualify as charities, rather than argue that no church should ever be considered a charity. I wish so much that there were an alternate universe I could cite to that is completely devoid of the influences of religion so people could objectively see the positive influence that churches have on society BECAUSE of (rather than in spite of) their religious-based teachings. Unfortunately I cannot, but I am confident that the world is better off with the influence of churches, and providing a deduction for those who help to fund their efforts is a small price to pay for the good they do in return.

Posted by: Blake A. Treu | Oct 20, 2014 8:40:41 AM

Ron M: "Ok now take out donations to Religious organizations and lets see it. That is the issue with these statistics, when you leave out tithings and other religious based "charitable donations" the rankings change."

Actually social scientist Arthur Brooks studied this issue and reported his conclusions in his acclaimed book "Who Really Cares." The bottom line is that as a group conservatives are more generous than liberals even when church donations are not counted, although the difference, while still significant, is not longer as dramatic.

Posted by: Mike Petrik | Oct 20, 2014 8:47:19 AM

Daniel:

One of the primary reasons we use the word “charity” for an organization is historically based in both religious text and religious organizational activities over the past several hundred years. Churches are charities based on the historical definition of the word itself, not just because of IRC 170. If dhusk had actually said “churches should not be treated as charities under the tax code” then I’d have provided a different response…dhusk did not say that and so my logic was not circular.

It appears to me that your argument essentially boils down to a reflection of your own bias against religion. You don’t think there is any value in what religion provides that should be worthy of being called a charity or receiving a tax deduction, apart from the non-religious benefits provided to the poor. I’m going to assume you would not propose using the same stringent model for universities, hospitals, historical societies and societies for the fair treatment of animals, etc (such a standard would virtually eliminate the tax exemption for many of these societies). But it has been my experience that religion has a much more lasting economic effect on elevating people out of poverty than soup kitchens (although soup kitchens absolutely serve a critical need). It’s the whole “giving a person a fish” versus “teaching a person how to fish” concept. Many religions do both and both activities are charitable...not just because IRC 170 says so.

Posted by: John S. Treu | Oct 20, 2014 11:23:26 AM

With the exception of Utah, this list looks more dependent on adjusted gross income than it does on charitable giving. In other words, the charitable giving could skew slightly blue or be equal, but if adjusted gross income skews red in a larger way (lower AGI in red states, then you get these results.

Posted by: ATLprof | Oct 20, 2014 12:32:39 PM

Sources of bias: (1) If a state has high income taxes, like Callifornia, a higher % of returns itemize, and charity will make up a smaller % of the total.

Posted by: Bob | Oct 20, 2014 12:42:11 PM

ATLprof: Seriously? So evaluating generosity is best done by comparing per capita giving rather than percentage of ability to pay? Should we evaluate tax equity the same way?

Posted by: Mike Petrik | Oct 21, 2014 3:39:38 AM

Bob, please explain. Are you suggesting that the increased itemization in high tax states is actually inhibiting charitable giving?

Posted by: Mike Petrik | Oct 21, 2014 3:44:55 AM

I am seriously laughing my butt off with the Treu responses. We are now arguing that the tertiary societal good done by churches warrants the charity designation. I am also accused of having an anti-religion bias, by someone who does not even know me and my religious views. Then I am told that a study that used tax returns, which are predicated on the IRC, did not use the IRC for defining a charity. They have turned a discussion on whether a church is a charity into whether churches have a societal benefits, which no one has argued against. The circular logic, strawmen, and the begging of questions is getting mighty deep in here.

I for one do not think a fine tuning of what church would constitute a charity is a discussion the first amendment would let us pursue. I would eliminate the deduction for tithing to churches that were not directed toward a specific charitable activity performed by the church. Relying on the premise that attending church provides moral guidance which in turn benefits society at large is not something I think taxpayers should be subsidizing. The actual good work: soup kitchens, disaster relief, etc. that churches do should fall under a charity definition. Since you two seem so keen on discussing the LDS church, then how about this, the next missionary from the LDS church that knocks on my door and asks me to donate to a charitable cause as opposed to joining their church will persuade me that the primary mission of the LDS church is charity and not conversion and preaching their beliefs. As it stands now, the Salvation Army only asks for my money, and I receive nothing in return, a true charitable gift. Churches ask for donations and attendees receive benefits, not a true 100% charitable gift.

Posted by: Daniel | Oct 21, 2014 6:03:06 AM

A better way to phrase the "churches are not charities" argument is simply "Morality is not charity." Donating to a church has nothing to do with charity - now if that church runs a soup kitchen and you donate to the soup kitchen... that looks more like charity (at least to me...).

Someone explain again why a church gets special tax favor over any other plain Jane 501(c)(3)...

As far as these statistics go... Where is the Walton family living now? I am sure their "charitable donations" to their art foundation are reaalllly making the world a better place.

Posted by: Nick | Oct 21, 2014 6:30:28 AM

Daniel - Don't laugh at the true responses.
I personally would rather die of starvation than burn in hell. From my perspective, someone trying to solve the latter problem, rather than the former, is doing more good. While the Mormon missionaries are sometimes annoying (as are 19-30 year olds showing up at my door generally), and you may heartily disagree with what they preach, from their perspective, what they are try to do for you is far more important than feed you. Which gets us back to the definition of charity. What says that your desire to help others by filling their bellies is any more valid than the 19 year old Mormon's desire to help others by saving their soul? Given our inability to separate the two, one might consider doing away with the deduction generally.
Finally, post your address, and I am certain someone on this message board could have 2 Mormon missionaries on your door within 48 hours asking for a contribution to any of their current charitable endeavors, with the ability to receive, process, and document such charitable donations.

Posted by: J Dawg | Oct 21, 2014 8:30:58 AM

Daniel makes fair points. The justification for a tax deduction for most charitable contributions (especially to alms-giving charities) is that they address social pathologies or needs that otherwise would have to be addressed by government. This justification would certainly apply to gifts to the Salvation Army (which interestingly is a church by the way), but most church tithes go chiefly to the upkeep of a parish or congregation so as to enable it to offer sacraments and other services to its members. Whether such sacraments and services serve to benefit the body politic by addressing or preventing social pathologies is speculative. Although I personally am convinced that such services do inure to the public benefit, I acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree and I’m not aware of any dispositive social science literature on the matter. I am, however, aware of social scientist Arthur C Brooks’ study addressing who and why people give to charity, and that study concluded that self-identified conservatives out-perform self-identified liberals even when church giving is excluded. Basically, Brooks found evidence for the notion that liberals appetite for charity was diminished somewhat by their believe that social needs and pathologies are more properly addressed by government.

Posted by: Mike Petrik | Oct 21, 2014 9:18:26 AM

Daniel:

Nobody is arguing that churches do not spend the majority of their funds operating their church. In terms of my statement about bias, let me ask you an altogether different question. Do you think the standard you would apply to churches (only allowing deductions for the funds they pass along to the poor rather than for funds used to operate the church) is a standard that you would also apply to Universities (meaning only donations that ultimately were used to fund scholarships for underprivileged would be considered charitable donations)? How about the humane society, alcoholics anonymous, or GLTB pride groups? I'm guessing you would feel very uncomfortable with applying your own logic and standards to these other groups that are also 501(c)(3) charities, as doing so would virtually eliminate the charitable deduction for most donations to these groups. I am speculating that since you want charitable deductions for churches slashed, you probably align ideologically more closely with these other charitable organizations. I don't know whether you are biased against religion on a personal level and I didn't make that assertion, but I said your argument appears to boil down to bias. If you would not apply the same standard to these all these other charities that you would for churches, that would tend to indicate that my speculation was accurate. Again, I just said bias appears to me to be the source of your argument, but it's entirely possible that I am wrong.

Bob:
The states with higher incomes where more people itemize would tend to have more charitable deductions taken, not less. The argument cuts the opposite direction. Where there are fewer itemizers, more actual charitable donations do not show up on the tax return because charitable deductions are not reported if a taxpayer takes the standard deduction. Controlling for this variable would only increase the discrepancy if the blue states tend to be in higher income earning locations.

Posted by: John S. Treu | Oct 21, 2014 9:32:12 AM

From Forbes article titled "Giving to Your Church Doesn't Count"

Jon Huntsman Sr. has given away about $1.5 billion to worthy causes – about 80% of his total wealth. He is also spending $200 million building Huntsman Springs, a golf resort and nature reserve in Idaho that will donate all proceeds of real estate sold to his family’s charitable foundation. But neither of these totals include his strict tithing to the Mormon church of 10% of everything he has ever earned.

“My philanthropy is not borne out of my faith,” he says. “They require 10% tithing. I don’t consider that to be philanthropy and I don’t consider it to be part of my philanthropic giving. I consider it as club dues.

“People who put money in the church basket and people who go to church and pay the pastor: that isn’t real philanthropy, that’s just like you belong to a country club. You pay your dues to belong to that church so you pay your tithing or whatever it is. I’ve never added that into my philanthropy in any way because I just think it’s a part of a person’s life.”

Posted by: 2 Cents | Oct 21, 2014 10:47:58 AM

Let me be clear, I'm not saying that tithing and other contributions should not be allowed as deductions for federal income tax purposes. In fact, I think there are plenty of good arguments for them being deductible. I just don't think that they should be counted as "charity" when there is a quid pro quo. Tithing, at least in the mormon church, buys salvation and a ticket to enter the temple. Hardly something to consider as charity.

Posted by: 2 Cents | Oct 21, 2014 1:47:27 PM

John, read the last line two lines of my post and stop assuming things that I clearly spell out for everyone. Second, how is supporting colleges, hospitals, addiction treatment etc. exclusive of also being pro-religion? Not seeing how an ideology prevents a person from seeing the value of both. Not sure what this says about you, though. Also, see the tax cases that deny deductions that were actually tuition payments but called charitable deductions. My logic that you have tortured and otherwise ignored, says that giving to an ASPCA is done with the donor receiving nothing back. I cannot deduct my adoption fee paid to the ASPCA because I got a dog. I can deduct the amount given in pure support. When you tithe to a church you are primarily paying to continue receiving fellowship and all the other things that come with attendance to a house of worship. You may also be paying for the church to support charitable activities that you get no benefit from, like a soup kitchen. Sometimes, church folk give directly to the soup kitchen bypassing the operating fund. Those donations should be deductible.

Charities constantly use the percentage of donations used directly for the mission as a reason to donate to them over other charities that are burdened with excess admin costs. Per your own statements, churches are the exact opposite. They fund themselves first and then maybe work toward charitable goals. In my mind, this means they are not a charity. They may perform charity. They may be the best thing for society, but they do not operate like a charity and should not be granted the same benefits of a charity. To be quite frank, I really do not care if the deduction is completely taken away, it is not why I give. There is no bias here. I am quite emotionally detached from intangible things like tax deductions. Your argument sounds like, churches do nice things so we should give church people a deduction. To me that is a hollow argument for calling it a charity, and more like the reasoning to support a separate exemption or benefit.

I can call a carnation a rose, but if it does not look or smell like a rose it is not a rose. A church is established to spread a gospel. It relies on money from its followers. It may then turn its followers on to good deeds. A charity is set up to do good deeds first and obtains money from people outside of its doors to do those deeds. Again, let me know when the LDS missionaries go around to only talk about the importance of charitable giving.

Posted by: Daniel | Oct 21, 2014 2:01:40 PM

This thread has mutated into a discussion of whether churches are or should be regarded as charities precisely because of a claim that their treatment of charities is the key explanation for the study's findings. But that claim is doubtful given Arthur Brooks rather famous study on charitable giving, which among other things concluded that self-identified conservatives were more generous than self-identified liberals even if church giving is not considered.

Posted by: Mike Petrik | Oct 22, 2014 5:31:15 AM

Sorry, I meant to type "as charities" rather than "of charities."

Posted by: Mike Petrik | Oct 22, 2014 5:32:29 AM

Daniel:

I did not intend to communicate that the ideologies for donating to different organizations are mutually exclusive and my hypothetical question to you says absolutely nothing about me, having personally donated to substantially all of the charities I mentioned. Rather, I asked you a very specific question about whether you would apply the same standard you want to have applied to churches to other charities that do not offer direct assistance to the indigent. Your point seems to be that a charitable donation ceases to be charitable where there is a quid pro quo associated with the donations and you imply that receipt of church services is the reason people donate to churches. I question that assertion both because I don’t believe receipt of the significant majority of “church services” is in any way contingent on individual donations and because it is my perceptions that the quid pro quo for churches is not particularly different than for other charities.

To speak to the first issue, while there’s no question that church services are funded with donations generally, the receipt of church worship services at the individual level is absolutely not contingent on the payment of tithing by that individual. Anyone is welcome to attend Catholic mass, Mormon Sacrament Meeting (temple worship excepted), or a Baptist Sunday School without paying a dime to any of these organizations and it is my experience that this is consistent across most, if not all, religions. To borrow the analogy from the Huntsman article, the same is simply not the case for a country club membership.

Moving on to the second yet related issue, it seems the real benefit or quid pro quo that people get from church donations is typically in the form of intangible spiritual benefits. It should be noted that, by definition, that has to be the case because if any tangible benefit is received in return for a donation, the charitable deduction is already disallowed to the extent of such benefit. Intangible spiritual benefits have no tangible FMV and, as such, do not reduce the value of the charitable donation to the church. The quid pro quo of which you speak appears to be primarily based on these intangible benefits (hell-fire insurance, if you will).

But if we’re going to use intangible benefits to establish a quid pro quo, then how is Jon Huntsman’s donation to the hospitals, libraries, and university departments that now bear his name any different than donations to a church? Does he not receive a significant amount of “intangible spiritual benefits” and “friendly associations” as a result of those donations? Short of building naming rights, most charities have certain ways of recognizing donors in similar although less significant ways. Even if we take away such recognition and look at a purely anonymous donation, doesn’t every donor to charity donate because they do, in fact, get something out of it? Even if the “something” is nothing more than a good feeling inside (which sounds an awful lot like “intangible spiritual benefits” to me), there is a reason that a person makes a charitable donation. I don’t think that reason, unless it is in fact a tangible benefit, precludes the organization from being a charity, which is why I discussed the nature of the organization rather than the quid pro quo aspect of your comments.

Lastly, I would also point you to the significant efforts churches go to in order to support the many charities you deem worthy of being called charities in the form of encouraging its membership to volunteer time to support such organizations. That doesn’t show up as a line item on the church’s income statement, but the dedication of even administrative expenses to these activities is not insignificant. Just because a majority of funds may be spent on provision of church services, that does not capture the full scope of the impact of the donations.

Posted by: John S. Treu | Oct 22, 2014 12:29:31 PM

Under Section 170(c), any non-profit that is organized exclusively for “religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition … or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals” is considered a “charity”, or at least, any contribution to such an organization is considered a “charitable contribution”. There are, of course, some additional types of organizations that are considered charitable, such as governments, war veterans’ organizations, fraternal societies, and cemeteries.

So, the statutory definition of charity is not nearly so limited to whether or not the organization’s focus is exclusively on helping the poor. It seems that your main problem with churches being on this list is that not all their efforts go towards helping the poor. But here’s my problem with that argument: a VERY LARGE portion of the organizations qualifying to receive deductible contributions will never give a dime of their money to helping the poor!!! So here’s my question, then: if churches shouldn’t be considered charities, should we not also take governments, educational institutions, research institutions, museums, and the rest of the lot off the list? Shouldn’t soup kitchens and their ilk have the exclusive right to be considered charities?

In my opinion, that’s not the correct answer. Charity is more than just feeding the poor. It’s about having an overall positive impact on society, whether it be through the arts, sports, scientific research, and, yes, religious teaching. All of the approved organizations have a positive impact on society, and often they have the type of impacts that save the government a whole ton of effort, money, and trouble, which, go figure, has A LOT to do with why the deduction is allowed in the first place. If you want the list of approved organizations to be either bigger or smaller, then I can see your point, and by all means you’re free to get a bill passed and make it so. But if you honestly would single out churches simply because of their religious teachings, and want them off the list, while being content to leave the rest of the organizations on the list, then yes, you are very clearly biased and, frankly, you’re either ignorant or delusional.

Posted by: Blake Treu | Oct 22, 2014 5:29:46 PM

Having re-read my comment, I was careless: regardless of the argument made, it’s not fair to classify someone as ignorant or delusional, and I therefore apologize. The point I’m really after here is that I think it’s quite unfair and biased to put churches on the chopping block without exercising the same level of scrutiny with the other types of organizations that are currently considered charities under current tax law.

Posted by: Blake Treu | Oct 22, 2014 7:34:37 PM

Blake, I typed a long response to both you and your brother(?), but ultimately you guys are not worth it. At least, i do not think it will be posted. You create strawmen arguments to fight against while ignoring what I said. here are some bullet points.
- circular logic is terrible and you two are unbelievably guilty of it, ie using the definition from the IRC to state what a charity can include does not address my argument that the IRC definition should be changed;
- attacking strawmen does not strengthen your argument nor weaken mine: I never claimed that other charities should not be held to my same standard. we are only discussing churches in this thread so stop making assumptions and then calling me ignorant based on your assumption. Just a bit of advice, but that action makes you look ignorant. also, who said only charities that help the poor are charities? you pulled that out of the air.
- any "charity" that is primarily for the benefit of its members is not a charity to me.
- you two seem to confuse charities with non-profits. these two are not one-in-the-same. my contention is that a church is not a charity. thus giving to a church should not count as a charitable contribution, unless the giving was specifically designated to be used for charitable work by the church.
- Glad you are willing to sign your name to the disgusting personal attacks. Stay classy Utah!!!

Posted by: Daniel | Oct 23, 2014 11:30:03 AM