This State Factor examines the relationship between state tax policies and charitable giving. It summarizes research finding that higher state taxes are associated with lower levels of charitable giving. Specifically, a 1 percentage point increase in state income tax burden is associated with a 0.35% decrease in charitable donations per dollar of state income. The document discusses the important role of charitable organizations in addressing social issues and argues they are often more effective than government programs in providing services due to greater flexibility and accountability from relying on voluntary donations rather than tax funds. It maintains that state policies should consider how to encourage charitable giving."
State of the States: An Analysis of the 2015 Governors’ AddressesALEC
State of the States is an in-depth study of governors’ tax, budget and pension reform proposals. The report gives insight into which states proposed economic reform to protect taxpayers and which states took steps toward increasing state revenue. This report also features graphics that reveal regional trends in proposed reforms while also highlighting which states have a newly elected governor.
Rich States, Poor States Rankings, 9th EditionALEC
The 2016 state economic rankings for the ninth edition of Rich States, Poor States from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) track economic trends across the country.
For more information, visit alec.org
6th Edition, www.alec.org/rsps
By Arthur B. Laffer, Stephen Moore and Jonathan Williams
All across the nation, states are looking for ways to boost their economies and become more economically competitive. Each state confronts this task with a set of policy decisions unique to their own situation. However, not all state policies lead to economic prosperity and while some states achieve economic prosperity, others continue to struggle in their efforts to revive their economies.
Fortunately, the United States, with its “50 laboratories of democracy,” provides us with empirical evidence to track exactly which policies lead to economic prosperity and which fail to deliver. Rich States, Poor States is an annual economic competiveness study authored by Dr. Arthur Laffer, Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, and Jonathan Williams, Director of the Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force at the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Armed with years of economic data and empirical evidence from each state, the authors identify which policies can truly lead a state to economic prosperity. Rich States, Poor States not only identifies these policies but also makes sound research-based conclusions about which states are poised to achieve greater economic prosperity and those that are stuck on the path to a lackluster economy. The economic outlook ranking is a forward-looking measure of how each state can expect to perform economically based on 15 policy areas that have proven, over time, to mean greater economic success.
Jobs, Innovation, and Opportunity in the StatesALEC
With unemployment remaining stubbornly high, and most Americans worrying about pocketbook issues like jobs, energy costs, retirement security, and health care affordability – ALEC releases its plan for Jobs, Innovation, and Opportunity. State lawmakers today face very difficult economic challenges. Since 1973, ALEC has focused on providing solutions to America’s biggest problems. State lawmakers can conquer today’s economic challenges by refocusing on our nation’s founding principles of limited government and free markets. The states, not Washington, D.C., must take the lead in restarting America’s economic engine and putting people back to work.
For more information, please visit www.alec.org.
State of the States: An Analysis of the 2015 Governors’ AddressesALEC
State of the States is an in-depth study of governors’ tax, budget and pension reform proposals. The report gives insight into which states proposed economic reform to protect taxpayers and which states took steps toward increasing state revenue. This report also features graphics that reveal regional trends in proposed reforms while also highlighting which states have a newly elected governor.
Rich States, Poor States Rankings, 9th EditionALEC
The 2016 state economic rankings for the ninth edition of Rich States, Poor States from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) track economic trends across the country.
For more information, visit alec.org
6th Edition, www.alec.org/rsps
By Arthur B. Laffer, Stephen Moore and Jonathan Williams
All across the nation, states are looking for ways to boost their economies and become more economically competitive. Each state confronts this task with a set of policy decisions unique to their own situation. However, not all state policies lead to economic prosperity and while some states achieve economic prosperity, others continue to struggle in their efforts to revive their economies.
Fortunately, the United States, with its “50 laboratories of democracy,” provides us with empirical evidence to track exactly which policies lead to economic prosperity and which fail to deliver. Rich States, Poor States is an annual economic competiveness study authored by Dr. Arthur Laffer, Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal, and Jonathan Williams, Director of the Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force at the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Armed with years of economic data and empirical evidence from each state, the authors identify which policies can truly lead a state to economic prosperity. Rich States, Poor States not only identifies these policies but also makes sound research-based conclusions about which states are poised to achieve greater economic prosperity and those that are stuck on the path to a lackluster economy. The economic outlook ranking is a forward-looking measure of how each state can expect to perform economically based on 15 policy areas that have proven, over time, to mean greater economic success.
Jobs, Innovation, and Opportunity in the StatesALEC
With unemployment remaining stubbornly high, and most Americans worrying about pocketbook issues like jobs, energy costs, retirement security, and health care affordability – ALEC releases its plan for Jobs, Innovation, and Opportunity. State lawmakers today face very difficult economic challenges. Since 1973, ALEC has focused on providing solutions to America’s biggest problems. State lawmakers can conquer today’s economic challenges by refocusing on our nation’s founding principles of limited government and free markets. The states, not Washington, D.C., must take the lead in restarting America’s economic engine and putting people back to work.
For more information, please visit www.alec.org.
H.R.25 - Fair Tax Act of 2009
To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States
Economists See Clouds in the Silver LiningYardi Matrix
Download the full report: https://goo.gl/5jwDS5
At a time when optimism is rampant in the real estate industry, and the stock market is near all-time highs after a massive run-up, economists lived up to their billing as dismal scientists at the National Association of Business Economists (NABE) annual policy conference in Washington, D.C., last week.
Although the immediate state of the economy is healthy, economists lamented the country’s long-term fiscal situation, recently made worse by the tax reform passed by Congress. They were also pessimistic about the prospects for policy solutions, which include prudent immigration reform and fewer—not more—restrictions on global trade, given the growing populism that is producing an electorate with increasingly polarized views in the U.S. and Europe.
“I’m concerned that the political system has not come to grips with sensible fiscal policy,” said Alice Rivlin, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former vice chair of the Federal Reserve and director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Across the country, states are seeking new ways to become more economically competitive and better ways to grow. Unfortunately, economic prosperity can be elusive, as some policy prescriptions that are supposed to help miss the mark. All too often, myths about taxes and budgets are prevalent in public policy debates and misinformation abounds. It is important to set the record straight with the facts regarding which policies allow a state to prosper and which policies can trap a state in economic malaise.
In Tax Myths Debunked, renowned economists Dr. Randall Pozdena, former vice president of research at the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank, and Dr. Eric Fruits refute the Left’s popularly repeated myths about taxes and spending. Using both theoretical and empirical evidence, Tax Myths Debunked confirms what is clearly proven in Rich States, Poor States: The key to economic prosperity at the state level is in free-market, pro-growth tax and fiscal policy.
For more information, please visit www.alec.org
" The lower one’s income, the higher one’s overall effective state and local tax rate. Combining all state and local income, property, sales and excise taxes that Americans pay, the nationwide average effective state and local tax rates by income group are 10.9 percent for the poorest 20 percent of individuals and families, 9.4 percent for the middle 20 percent and 5.4 percent for the top 1 percent."
Testimony: Mississippi Tax Policy: Options for Reform (10/3)Tax Foundation
This presentation accompanied testimony to the Mississippi Tax Policy Council about the state of Mississippi's tax code and the best options for reforming it.
Topics covered include:
An overview of the Tax Foundation
Mississippi's place on the State Business Tax Climate Index
Mississippi's state-local tax burdens
A path toward reform
2015 Prescription for America Rebrand and RebuildDarrell Prince
Political platform for transformation of the nation, wide spread change, something to organize people who want a better future, better economics, and a better legal system, with tighter adherence to a simpler doctine including the Constitution and the Declaration
Tax reduction for economic developmentM S Siddiqui
The policy makers in Bangladesh prefer higher both income tax and customs duty in order to finance the development work defying the advice of economists. The own experience of tax reduction and reform in tax law since 1990s has increases higher revenue collection. Bangladesh should listen to economist and learn from the experience of two economies and ignore own experiences.
Respond to each peer initial post and question at the end with a resmickietanger
Respond to each peer initial post and question at the end with a response about 3-4 sentences long.
Peer 1
Voluntary organizations funded by public contributions have existed since the seventeenth century; however, didn’t become a unified sector until the 1970s (Renz, 2016, pg. 7). Because non-profits are diverse and complex it can be difficult to define and make inclusive to one definition. It can refer to charitable tax-exempt organizations, civic organizations that do not allow the deductibility of donations, and unincorporated organizations (Renz, 2016, pg. 3).
The non-profit sector covers a broad spectrum of public services such as hospitals, foundations, charities, religious institutions, and disaster relief organizations. Acknowledging the importance of non-profits is easy as these organizations attempt to address the issues of millions of people whether it be donations, programs, or services. Although tax exempt, government policies play a crucial role in the growing number of nonprofit organizations either indirectly by providing incentives or directly through grants and contracts (Renz, 2016, pg. 17). Non-profits don’t exist to make a profit but to use excess resources to meet needs that the government alone cannot fulfill. These organizations are not prohibited from earning revenue as long as the profit-making activities are related to the recognized program purpose.
The three main sectors private, non-profit, and the government share several similarities and key differences. One of the main differences is how their resources are handled. A non-profit organizations’ money is legally required to support its mission while private entities are able to distribute their resources to shareholders. Government agencies redirect their surplus resources back into government initiatives. Political shifts also highlight additional differences. As the political power changes so do the priorities in governmental agencies and the availability of public sector programs (The role of non-profits vs government and for profit sectors, 2015). Political shifts can garner more support and funding for non-profits but because the organizations secure funding from outside sources, programs can continue indefinitely as long as resources are available without any effect of a political change.
Non-profits are typically restricted with their work inside of the community as long as its business and mission related. Most restrictions imposed on non-profits are administered through state and federal government agencies through tax compliance, incorporation rules, and political participation.
Peer 2
What is the nonprofit sector? A nonprofit sector is an organization that provides a service(s) that is not conducted for the purpose of making a profit. The organization is sustained by donations, sales of goods and services, or by revenue from the government (Wolfe). The United States has three sectors government, private, and nonprofit. The private nonp ...
H.R.25 - Fair Tax Act of 2009
To promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national sales tax to be administered primarily by the States
Economists See Clouds in the Silver LiningYardi Matrix
Download the full report: https://goo.gl/5jwDS5
At a time when optimism is rampant in the real estate industry, and the stock market is near all-time highs after a massive run-up, economists lived up to their billing as dismal scientists at the National Association of Business Economists (NABE) annual policy conference in Washington, D.C., last week.
Although the immediate state of the economy is healthy, economists lamented the country’s long-term fiscal situation, recently made worse by the tax reform passed by Congress. They were also pessimistic about the prospects for policy solutions, which include prudent immigration reform and fewer—not more—restrictions on global trade, given the growing populism that is producing an electorate with increasingly polarized views in the U.S. and Europe.
“I’m concerned that the political system has not come to grips with sensible fiscal policy,” said Alice Rivlin, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former vice chair of the Federal Reserve and director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Across the country, states are seeking new ways to become more economically competitive and better ways to grow. Unfortunately, economic prosperity can be elusive, as some policy prescriptions that are supposed to help miss the mark. All too often, myths about taxes and budgets are prevalent in public policy debates and misinformation abounds. It is important to set the record straight with the facts regarding which policies allow a state to prosper and which policies can trap a state in economic malaise.
In Tax Myths Debunked, renowned economists Dr. Randall Pozdena, former vice president of research at the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank, and Dr. Eric Fruits refute the Left’s popularly repeated myths about taxes and spending. Using both theoretical and empirical evidence, Tax Myths Debunked confirms what is clearly proven in Rich States, Poor States: The key to economic prosperity at the state level is in free-market, pro-growth tax and fiscal policy.
For more information, please visit www.alec.org
" The lower one’s income, the higher one’s overall effective state and local tax rate. Combining all state and local income, property, sales and excise taxes that Americans pay, the nationwide average effective state and local tax rates by income group are 10.9 percent for the poorest 20 percent of individuals and families, 9.4 percent for the middle 20 percent and 5.4 percent for the top 1 percent."
Testimony: Mississippi Tax Policy: Options for Reform (10/3)Tax Foundation
This presentation accompanied testimony to the Mississippi Tax Policy Council about the state of Mississippi's tax code and the best options for reforming it.
Topics covered include:
An overview of the Tax Foundation
Mississippi's place on the State Business Tax Climate Index
Mississippi's state-local tax burdens
A path toward reform
2015 Prescription for America Rebrand and RebuildDarrell Prince
Political platform for transformation of the nation, wide spread change, something to organize people who want a better future, better economics, and a better legal system, with tighter adherence to a simpler doctine including the Constitution and the Declaration
Tax reduction for economic developmentM S Siddiqui
The policy makers in Bangladesh prefer higher both income tax and customs duty in order to finance the development work defying the advice of economists. The own experience of tax reduction and reform in tax law since 1990s has increases higher revenue collection. Bangladesh should listen to economist and learn from the experience of two economies and ignore own experiences.
Respond to each peer initial post and question at the end with a resmickietanger
Respond to each peer initial post and question at the end with a response about 3-4 sentences long.
Peer 1
Voluntary organizations funded by public contributions have existed since the seventeenth century; however, didn’t become a unified sector until the 1970s (Renz, 2016, pg. 7). Because non-profits are diverse and complex it can be difficult to define and make inclusive to one definition. It can refer to charitable tax-exempt organizations, civic organizations that do not allow the deductibility of donations, and unincorporated organizations (Renz, 2016, pg. 3).
The non-profit sector covers a broad spectrum of public services such as hospitals, foundations, charities, religious institutions, and disaster relief organizations. Acknowledging the importance of non-profits is easy as these organizations attempt to address the issues of millions of people whether it be donations, programs, or services. Although tax exempt, government policies play a crucial role in the growing number of nonprofit organizations either indirectly by providing incentives or directly through grants and contracts (Renz, 2016, pg. 17). Non-profits don’t exist to make a profit but to use excess resources to meet needs that the government alone cannot fulfill. These organizations are not prohibited from earning revenue as long as the profit-making activities are related to the recognized program purpose.
The three main sectors private, non-profit, and the government share several similarities and key differences. One of the main differences is how their resources are handled. A non-profit organizations’ money is legally required to support its mission while private entities are able to distribute their resources to shareholders. Government agencies redirect their surplus resources back into government initiatives. Political shifts also highlight additional differences. As the political power changes so do the priorities in governmental agencies and the availability of public sector programs (The role of non-profits vs government and for profit sectors, 2015). Political shifts can garner more support and funding for non-profits but because the organizations secure funding from outside sources, programs can continue indefinitely as long as resources are available without any effect of a political change.
Non-profits are typically restricted with their work inside of the community as long as its business and mission related. Most restrictions imposed on non-profits are administered through state and federal government agencies through tax compliance, incorporation rules, and political participation.
Peer 2
What is the nonprofit sector? A nonprofit sector is an organization that provides a service(s) that is not conducted for the purpose of making a profit. The organization is sustained by donations, sales of goods and services, or by revenue from the government (Wolfe). The United States has three sectors government, private, and nonprofit. The private nonp ...
BUDGETING AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENTPublic budgeting and financi.docxAASTHA76
BUDGETING AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
Public budgeting and financial management are concerned with allocating limited resources to problems that governments and other public organizations face. Just as you establish a personal budget to track your income and expenses and, just as businesses create budgets to aid in decisions affecting profits and losses, so do public organizations employ budgets to help in planning and management. Public organizations must carefully and responsibly manage large amounts of money and other resources—taking in taxes and other revenues, purchasing goods and services, investing surplus funds, and managing debt wisely.
From the point of view of the manager or citizen trying to influence public policy, the budget is an extremely important tool for planning and control. To manage public programs effectively, you must be able to manage resources, both practically and politically. In this chapter we focus on the budget process from the standpoint of the individual public manager, examining how budget decisions are made and how you can influence budgetary outcomes. Although much of the budget process is highly charged politically, specific technical knowledge about budgeting systems will give you a distinct advantage.
The elaborate systems that public organizations have developed to manage their fiscal affairs are relatively recent. Prior to 1900, revenues were easily sufficient to cover the expenses of government, and financial management was merely record keeping. As the scope of government grew and new demands were placed on its resources, the need for more sophisticated systems of decision making became apparent. Moreover, repeated instances of corruption and waste made more effective control over the public's resources necessary.
In establishing its executive budget process through the Budgeting and Accounting Act of 1921, the federal government followed the lead of several local and state governments that had already taken similar actions. This municipal reform movement emphasized the budget process as a means of bringing order to public spending; consequently, by the 1920s, most big cities had established a formal budget process. Similar developments were also occurring at the state level. In 1910, Ohio became the first state to require an executive budget; within the next decade, similar actions took place in most other states. At the federal level, a special Commission on Economy and Efficiency, known as the Taft Commission, recommended establishing an executive budget in 1912; the recommendation was implemented nearly a decade later.
Since the 1920s, the federal budget has grown in both size and complexity, as have budgets at the state and local levels. This growth means that budgeting and financial management have come to involve far more than keeping a record of income and expenses. Today, how government spends its money affects many other areas of the economy; consequently, the budget is an instrument of fisc ...
What Are Taxes And Best Benefits of File Taxes Each Year? 2023 | CIO Women Ma...CIOWomenMagazine
While we primarily consider them once a year during tax season, we deal with them often throughout the year. In addition to the benefits of file taxes on our income, we also have to pay taxes on the things we buy and the property we own. Total annual expenditures in the United States for these things add up to billions of dollars and include everything from Social Security and the military to garbage collection and park maintenance.
Public Good by Private Means: principles of philanthropy policymakingrhoddavies1
Slides from a guest lecture given as part of the Cass Business School MSc in Grantmaking, Philanthropy & Social Investment, based on my book of the same title. (Also see accompanying notes).
Briefing for Opposition Day Debate - 10th July 2013Citizen Network
An overview of the cumulative impact of UK government policies on disabled people. Prepared as a briefing for MPs for the Opposition Day Debate in the House of Commons on 10th July 2013. Supporting: the Campaign for a Fair Society, Pat's Petition and the WOW Campaign.
Week 5 Discussion Responses - EconDiscussion for Response 1B.docxcockekeshia
Week 5 Discussion Responses - Econ
Discussion for Response 1
By: P,V
Week 5 - Taxes
Currently, our tax system is a progressive tax system. This means that the more money you make, the more money you pay. This way, those who do not struggle to put food on the table can afford to pay the government. In considering a better tax system, there should be five fundamental theories: fairness, adequacy, simplicity, transparency, and administrative ease.
In fairness, everyone pays a fair share of taxes within horizontal equity meaning that everyone pays a similar proportion of tax. In adequacy, there should be an adequate amount of taxes to provide enough revenue to meet the needs of society. Simplicity meaning that having a simpler tax system will help taxpayers understand the tax system and, therefore, remain compliant. Having transparency and knowing who is being taxed and how much. Everyone is also aware of what the money is being used for. Finally, with administrative ease compares to simplicity where the tax system is not too complicated or expensive for both the taxpayer and collector (Oklahoma Policy Institute).
Raising taxes has some pros and cons. Some pros include: ensuring that services to citizens are available and needs, such as road repair, are completed without needing bonds. Cons include having a less disposable income to citizens as well as lowering the consumer expenditure which hurts businesses and the overall economy. Another con is that raising the tax encourages excessive government spending.
Some advantages of a progressive tax system include allowing those who are poorer to live more comfortably. It also helps the government establish higher tax brackets to generate revenue. Other advantages of a progressive tax system are that it can potentially produce more total income for the government and it improves the spending power of those who are of lower income. Disadvantages include having complex incentives and rules drive the cost of compliance way up (Murphey, 2017).
Income tax refers to the amount one pays on total income from businesses to the federal and state governments. Sales tax refers to the percentage paid by consumers when purchasing certain items. One involves the business owner and the other involves the consumer. The estate, or death/inheritance tax also has pros and cons. Pros include the same amount of tax is charged to everyone, only approximately 0.2% of people are eligible for the death tax, almost no employers pay the estate tax upon transfer, and estates worth more than $5 million have an average of 55% of net worth that was never taxed. Cons include assets are taxed at the same rate of liquid assets. The tax affects lower income families than others. The estate tax is based on the current value of the property and government can tax up to 3 times on estate tax (Brandon Gaille, 2015).
Taxes are necessary to pay the government in order for states to have the necessary things to keep.
As with most things in economics, taxation is a mixed blessing. It.docxfredharris32
As with most things in economics, taxation is a mixed blessing. It is a blessing for those who receive dollars from taxpayers, which is about 40% of the population; and it is a nuisance for those who have to pay the taxes. The objective of this unit is to help you understand taxes and understand how they affect your life and the economy.
The income tax system began in earnest in 1913 with the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution that gave Congress legal authority to tax income. A rudimentary income tax system was tried during the Civil War but was eventually declared unconstitutional. There was no income tax during the high watermark of America's industrial capitalism, beginning in about 1870 and continuing to 1910. If you made money in that era, you kept it. Many of the most famous capitalist names emerge from this era: Rockefeller, Carnegie, McCormick, Swift, and Vanderbilt.
Two major disasters in our economic history, the Great Depression and World War II, changed the role of taxation and government forever. Beginning in the mid-1930s, following the ideas of John Maynard Keynes, the U.S. government began to spend money much more aggressively. In the past, government believed mostly in a balanced budget, but that changed when the Great Depression lingered for an entire decade.
Later, to finance a two-front, world war, taxes were raised to about 90%. Thus began the era of big taxes to pay for big government. Taxes, of course, have fallen from that lofty peak to a more modest 35% marginal tax rate at present, but the number of taxes has increased exponentially. All but six states have an income tax; likewise, many counties and cities have an income tax.
Though there are many ways to slice the tax onion, perhaps the best is the following:
Progressive taxes: This is a tax system in which tax rates increase as income increases. In other words, the more money you make, the more taxes you pay. This system places a greater burden on those best able to pay and almost no burden on the poor. For example, according to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) statistics, the top 50% of earners pay 97% of the taxes. The top 1% of earners pays 30% of all income taxes. On the other hand, over fifty million people, or one-third of the adult population in the United States, pay no taxes whatsoever.
Regressive taxes: In theory, these are the opposite of progressive taxes; these tax strategies fall more heavily on the poor. Common sense would suggest that these would be rarely used in a well-organized economy, but in fact, they are among the most commonly used because of their relative invisibility. Sometimes called the nickel and dime tax, regressive taxes tend to be small for each individual event; therefore, they are not widely noted. A good example of a regressive tax is the sales tax. It takes a much larger percentage of a poor person’s income than the income of someone of wealth. The reason there is no protest is that it takes such a small amount of money on ...
A webinar presentation by Geoffrey Plague, Independent Sector, to the chief development officers from National Health Council member organizations. October 3, 2011
The 2014 economic outlook ranking is a forward-looking measure of how each state can expect to perform economically based on 15 policy areas that have proven, over time, to be the best determinants of economic success.
For more information, please visit www.alec.org/rsps.
Economy Derailed: State-by-State Impacts of the EPA Regulatory Train WreckALEC
Economy Derailed details the most onerous EPA regulations and their specific consequences on state economies. The report highlights the environmental quality improvements made over the past few decades, provides an exhaustive reference list of organizations and groups that oppose the EPA overreach, and makes recommendations on how state legislators can play a role in maintaining state sovereignty over environmental protection.
For more information, please visit www.alec.org.
Report Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress, ...ALEC
The 18th edition of the Report Card on American Education is a comprehensive overview of educational achievement levels, focusing on performance and gains for low-income students, in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Authors Dr. Matthew Ladner and Dave Myslinski analyze student scores, looking at performance and improvement over recent years. When combined, these policy measures build the state’s overall policy grade. Furthermore, the Report Card highlights education policies states have enacted and provides a roadmap to best practices, allowing legislators to learn from each other’s education reforms.
This year, Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin writes an inspirational forward citing her state’s education reforms in teacher quality, school accountability, and literacy.
For more information, please visit www.alec.org.
Report Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress, ...ALEC
The 17th edition of the Report Card on American Education contains a comprehensive overview of educational achievement levels (performance and gains for low-income students) for the 50 states and the District of Columbia (see full report for complete methodology). The Report Card details what education policies states currently have in place and provides a roadmap for legislators to follow to bring about educational excellence in their state.
Focusing on the reforms recently enacted in Indiana, and with a foreword by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, this Report Card on American Education examines the experiences other states can learn from the struggles and triumphs in Indiana.
For more information, please visit www.alec.org.
In 2010, Oklahoma was just starting to climb out of the national recession that cost our state nearly 80,000 jobs. Like people all around the country, many Oklahomans were struggling. Jobs had disappeared in the wake of a financial crisis that was largely out of our control. Tax revenues were down, and the state was facing a budget shortfall of over $500 million. It was with that difficult backdrop that I reached out to our state’s legislative leaders to help me build the best, most competitive economic climate possible. We set about reducing government waste and making state government smaller, smarter, and more efficient. Like many times in our state’s history, we rose to the challenge.
While many other states were raising taxes in order to close their budget gaps—and driving out jobs in the process—we cut our income tax. We provided relief to working families and spurred economic growth in the private sector. As a result, we have seen a net increase of almost 30,000 jobs in the last 12 months, and our job growth rate ranks in the top ten among all states. Our unemployment rate continues to be one of the lowest in the country at 6.1 percent. And in 2011, Oklahoma ranked first in the nation for the growth of manufacturing jobs, which grew five times faster than the national average.
For more information, please visit www.alec.org
Dig It! Rare Earth and Uranium Mining Potential in the StatesALEC
Rare earth and uranium are crucial to modern life in the United States. Rare earths are necessary for a wide array of everyday products from iPhones to advanced medical support to defense equipment, and to our digital society. Uranium fuels 20 percent of our electricity. Fortunately, the United States has the capacity to expand domestic production of both rare earths and uranium, which could reinvigorate our economy, add jobs, and increase revenues to suffering state budgets.
The Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force’s publication, titled Dig It! Rare Earth and Uranium Mining Potential in the States, details rare earth and uranium mining reserves and production, reviews permitting and regulatory hurdles, estimates the economic benefit of developing reserves, and highlights the safety and environmental track record of mining.
For more information, please visit www.alec.org.
This session provides a comprehensive overview of the latest updates to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (commonly known as the Uniform Guidance) outlined in the 2 CFR 200.
With a focus on the 2024 revisions issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), participants will gain insight into the key changes affecting federal grant recipients. The session will delve into critical regulatory updates, providing attendees with the knowledge and tools necessary to navigate and comply with the evolving landscape of federal grant management.
Learning Objectives:
- Understand the rationale behind the 2024 updates to the Uniform Guidance outlined in 2 CFR 200, and their implications for federal grant recipients.
- Identify the key changes and revisions introduced by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the 2024 edition of 2 CFR 200.
- Gain proficiency in applying the updated regulations to ensure compliance with federal grant requirements and avoid potential audit findings.
- Develop strategies for effectively implementing the new guidelines within the grant management processes of their respective organizations, fostering efficiency and accountability in federal grant administration.
What is the point of small housing associations.pptxPaul Smith
Given the small scale of housing associations and their relative high cost per home what is the point of them and how do we justify their continued existance
Russian anarchist and anti-war movement in the third year of full-scale warAntti Rautiainen
Anarchist group ANA Regensburg hosted my online-presentation on 16th of May 2024, in which I discussed tactics of anti-war activism in Russia, and reasons why the anti-war movement has not been able to make an impact to change the course of events yet. Cases of anarchists repressed for anti-war activities are presented, as well as strategies of support for political prisoners, and modest successes in supporting their struggles.
Thumbnail picture is by MediaZona, you may read their report on anti-war arson attacks in Russia here: https://en.zona.media/article/2022/10/13/burn-map
Links:
Autonomous Action
http://Avtonom.org
Anarchist Black Cross Moscow
http://Avtonom.org/abc
Solidarity Zone
https://t.me/solidarity_zone
Memorial
https://memopzk.org/, https://t.me/pzk_memorial
OVD-Info
https://en.ovdinfo.org/antiwar-ovd-info-guide
RosUznik
https://rosuznik.org/
Uznik Online
http://uznikonline.tilda.ws/
Russian Reader
https://therussianreader.com/
ABC Irkutsk
https://abc38.noblogs.org/
Send mail to prisoners from abroad:
http://Prisonmail.online
YouTube: https://youtu.be/c5nSOdU48O8
Spotify: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/libertarianlifecoach/episodes/Russian-anarchist-and-anti-war-movement-in-the-third-year-of-full-scale-war-e2k8ai4
Presentation by Jared Jageler, David Adler, Noelia Duchovny, and Evan Herrnstadt, analysts in CBO’s Microeconomic Studies and Health Analysis Divisions, at the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists Summer Conference.
Many ways to support street children.pptxSERUDS INDIA
By raising awareness, providing support, advocating for change, and offering assistance to children in need, individuals can play a crucial role in improving the lives of street children and helping them realize their full potential
Donate Us
https://serudsindia.org/how-individuals-can-support-street-children-in-india/
#donatefororphan, #donateforhomelesschildren, #childeducation, #ngochildeducation, #donateforeducation, #donationforchildeducation, #sponsorforpoorchild, #sponsororphanage #sponsororphanchild, #donation, #education, #charity, #educationforchild, #seruds, #kurnool, #joyhome
A process server is a authorized person for delivering legal documents, such as summons, complaints, subpoenas, and other court papers, to peoples involved in legal proceedings.
1. Executive Summary
n often overlooked aspect of public policy is the role
that charitable organizations have in addressing some of
society’s most pressing concerns. Because of this important
role and since charitable organizations are funded privately
through donations, understanding how state policies interact
with charitable organizations is crucial for a robust discussion
about public policy. This State Factor examines state tax poli-
cies that encourage charitable giving, apart from the charita-
ble giving deduction.
While many factors certainly influence an individual’s choice
about donating to charity, there are broad policy choices that
can encourage higher rates of growth in charitable giving. By
examining various tax burdens and tax rates with rigorous eco-
nomic analysis, this paper’s research findings show that a 1
percent increase in the personal income tax burden is associat-
ed with 0.35 percent decrease in charitable giving per dollar of
state income. Similarly, this State Factor found that an increase
in personal income tax burden of roughly 1 percentage point
of total state income results in a roughly 0.10 percentage point
decrease in the level of measured charitable donations as a
percent of income.
A PUBLICATION OF THE AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL
STATE
FACTOR
the
alec.org
The Effect of State Taxes on Charitable Giving
By William Freeland, Ben Wilterdink and Jonathan Williams
To learn more about how the American
Legislative Exchange Council helps develop
innovative solutions in partnership with
lawmakers and business leaders, or to become
a member, please visit www.alec.org.
American Legislative Exchange Council
2900 Crystal Drive, Suite 600
Arlington, VA 22202
Tel: 703.373.0933
Fax: 703.373.0927
www.alec.org
When all state taxes are considered, a 1 percentage point in-
crease in the total tax burden is associated with a 1.16 percent
drop in charitable giving per dollar of state income. Similarly,
this State Factor found that an increase in total tax burden of
roughly 1 percentage point of total state income results in a
roughly 0.09 percentage point decrease in the level measured
charitable donations as a percent of income.
SEPTEMBER 2015
A
2. THE STATE FACTOR
2 • AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL
For these figures, the opposite is also true: a tax cut of the size
described will result in a proportionate increase to charitable
giving. Moreover, given that total state charitable giving as a
percent of income ranges from roughly 5.2 percent down to
1.15 percent across states and years, this suggest that taxes
have a strong effect on charitable giving.
These strong findings indicate that charitable giving increases
when the burden of government, through taxes, is reduced.
This effect is three-fold. First, taxes reduce an individual’s in-
come, leaving less income to donate to charity in a given year.
Second, taxes reduce potential income growth that could
have resulted in subsequent charitable giving. Third, taxes
pay for public services and citizens may decide that they are
already paying their share of social spending through taxes
and decline to contribute to charity, thus “crowding out”
charitable donations. While it is clear that tax reductions do
not necessarily translate into loss of government services—
there are many ways that governments can spend tax reve-
nues more efficiently—it is certainly relevant that when taxes
are reduced, charitable organizations are likely to offset re-
ductions in public benefits.
It is also worth noting that the reverse effect is also true; an
increase in taxes is associated with a decrease in charitable
giving. These increases in taxes, which are then translated into
government spending for a given purpose, may reduce charita-
ble giving in that area. This negative feedback loop could result
in worsening a problem that additional government spending
seeks to solve. Given these findings, the impact of tax changes
on charitable giving is an often overlooked piece of the pub-
lic policy puzzle and policymakers should consider it carefully
when discussing tax policy changes.
Introduction
he concept of civil society has existed for centuries, yet it is
too often left out of serious conversations about public pol-
icy. Civil society is a collection of individuals who are connect-
ed through various social institutions and range from national
groups with many chapters to local community organizations.
Too often, discussion on the size and scope of government ig-
nores the role of civil society, particularly the larger role civil so-
ciety can be expected to fill as government is reformed in order
to tax less and focus its responsibilities on core competencies
that government is uniquely situated to accomplish.
This unique place in society is recognized by the United States
government by granting non-profit status, which exempts these
organizations from tax treatment as a business, precluding or-
ganizational taxation under the corporate or personal income
tax code and even allows private money donated to these orga-
nizations to be deducted from the tax liability of donors.
When discussions of tax reductions or spending reform occur
within state legislatures and the public sphere, discussions of
charitable giving are often absent, even from the talking points
of tax reduction and spending reform advocates. These de-
bates often focus on advocates of big government lamenting
the loss of public services, with all spending deemed essential
and already at the most frugal of scales, while tax reformers
note the proliferation of government waste ripe for cutting,
the benefits of additional economic growth as true social as-
sistance (more jobs, more income and more entrepreneurial
opportunity) and the positive “Laffer” effects of tax cuts which
partially dull the loss of revenue that would otherwise be ex-
pected from tax cuts.
But what is often forgotten is the charitable sector—both what
they provide currently and what more they would be able to
provide given a tax cut. That is, if lower tax states tend to give
more, and tax cutting states increase their giving, then charita-
ble giving belongs in the conversation regarding state tax cuts.
Civil society may well appropriately—and perhaps more effi-
ciently–fill necessary gaps in public needs that might happen to
arise alongside a back stop of more money in taxpayer pockets,
more economic growth and a government that provides for
core social needs.
T
“This State Factor examines state tax
policies that encourage charitable
giving, apart from the charitable
giving deduction.”
3. THE EFFECT OF STATE TAXES ON CHARITABLE GIVING
THE STATE FACTOR • 3
The space between what individuals are able to accomplish
on their own, voluntarily, and what government is able to—or
should—accomplish is filled by another crucial component of
civil society: private charitable organizations. Charitable orga-
nizations, broadly defined, are non-governmental collections
of individuals or communities that work to solve some problem
in society or otherwise provide social value in the gap between
private enterprise and government action. These organizations,
in their most abstract sense, have been around in some form
or another as long as people have been interacting with one
another. Today, there are countless charitable organizations,
diverse in size, scope and mission. Ranging from religious or-
ganizations to public policy groups, these groups generally do
not seek to make a profit, like businesses, and are not an arm
of any government. Whether it is a foundation that donates
millions to fighting global disease and hunger or the neighbor-
hood church that operates a food bank for the neediest in a
community, charitable organizations fill an important role in
civil society while relying exclusively on voluntary donations.
According to some, solving social problems is thought to be en-
tirely in the purview of various government programs funded
by taxpayers. However, there are limits to what government is
able to accomplish and, perhaps more importantly, limits on
what government should attempt to accomplish.
Much has been written on the effectiveness of privately fund-
ed charitable organizations and the lackluster performance
of government-run aid programs. Of course, there is a role
for government aid programs, but when it comes to provid-
ing long-term assistance to individuals in need, private charity
is unquestionably in a better position to do so. Government
is able to acquire—through taxes—and directly spend large
amounts of money on a large number of people, often in the
form of government assistance checks. However, government
agencies are less able to predict and meet specific needs of
individuals and communities. Much of the lasting benefits of
charity come from individualized attention and knowledge that
government is often unable to provide.
Solving societal problems is rarely, if ever, as simple as transfer-
ring money from one individual to another. Instead, the focus
on an individual’s development is what is most important. In
Losing Ground, political scientist and American Enterprise In-
stitute Fellow Charles Murray describes the unintended con-
sequences of simple output based government aid programs,
“The first effect [of government policies] . . . was to make it
profitable for the poor to behave in the short term in ways that
were destructive in the long term. Their second effect was to
mask these long-term losses—to subsidize irretrievable mis-
takes. We tried to remove the barriers to escape poverty, and
inadvertently built a trap.”1
Howard Husock, a philanthropy researcher and Vice President
at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, highlights a
comparison between government job training programs and
private job training programs. The government programs,
funded by the Workforce Investment Act, provide aid to about
7 million people annually. Only 56 percent of enrollees in the
program find work, while 20 percent are unable to retain their
job after six months. A similar private jobs training program by
The government programs, funded by the
Workforce Investment Act, provide aid
to about 7 million people annually. Only
56 percent of enrollees in the program
find work, while 20 percent are unable to
retain their job after six months.
4. THE STATE FACTOR
4 • AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL
contrast, in this case Cincinnati Works, is able to boast an 84
percent job placement and retention rate.2
Rather than focus-
ing on outputs, private charity is better equipped to do what is
needed most, improve outcomes and help individuals thrive.3
Private charitable organizations are often under tougher re-
source constraints than government, and because of this, there
is much more pressure to use those resources wisely and focus
on results, particularly given that charities compete against
one another for scarce charitable funding. Moreover, numer-
ous organizations and firms exist to examine the effectiveness
of charities in order to advise donors on how to be most im-
pactful with their donation.
“While many factors certainly
influence an individual’s choice
about donating to charity, there
are broad policy choices that can
encourage higher rates of growth in
charitable giving.”
Government, on the other hand, often focuses on direct out-
puts, such as how much money is spent, and often provides du-
plicative or unnecessary services. This problem is exacerbated
by the fact that government aid agencies and programs do not
need to attract voluntary donations to function, which curtails
incentives for efficiency and innovation. Because funding can
be based on politics rather than on effectiveness and demon-
strable results, government aid agencies often suffer from a
lack of accountability.
A lifelong academic researcher in the field of foreign aid and
its effectiveness, William Easterly writes about the perverse
incentives that government aid agencies often face when
tasked with helping developing countries. Easterly describes
a difference between “planners” and “searchers” in foreign
aid.4
Government agencies often deliver aid as “planners” us-
ing formulas and specific metrics to measure aid. Private char-
ities are often categorized as “searchers,” people searching for
solutions to problems when delivering foreign aid. Easterly
describes “searchers” as decentralized and looking for ways to
imitate the feedback of markets and democracy.
The positive role and influence of charitable giving in address-
ing some of society’s most urgent needs is difficult to overstate.
To that end, state policymakers should consider which policies
are likely to help private charity to proliferate and which are
likely to undermine it. This State Factor examines the relation-
ship between a state’s tax policy and its charitable giving.
5. THE EFFECT OF STATE TAXES ON CHARITABLE GIVING
THE STATE FACTOR • 5
Charitable Giving in the United States Today
o best understand the relationship between charitable
giving and state taxes, understanding the enormous scope
of charitable giving is essential. How much charitable giving
exists? Where does it come from and where does it go? An-
swering these questions provides context for this topic and will
better inform conclusions drawn from the research presented
in this paper.
According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics, there
are currently 1,507,231 tax-exempt organizations operating in
the United States.5
This includes a mixture of public charities,
private foundations, non-profit organizations and others. Over-
all, Americans have traditionally given about 2 percent of Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) to charity over the past 40 years.6
From 1997 to 2012, charitable giving in the United States grew
by 43.03 percent after adjusting for inflation, according to In-
ternal Revenue Service (IRS) statistics of income (SOI) tables.
In 2014, total charitable giving was $358.38 billion according
to estimates by Giving USA, or about 2.1 percent of total GDP.
While these figures describe charitable giving in the United
States as a whole, giving rates and growth in charitable giving
vary widely by state.
In gathering the data for this study, the analysis focused on
collecting data on state economic growth as well as account-
T
Figure 1
Source: Internal Revenue Service
Charitable Giving in the United States
‘97 ‘98 ‘99 ‘00 ‘01 ‘02 ‘03 ‘04 ‘05 ‘06 ‘07 ‘08 ‘09 ‘10 ‘11 ‘12
0
50
100
150
200
250
TotalCharitableGivingin$Billions
Total Chartiable Deductions Claimed in 2012 by Income Group
Total
Chartiable
Deductions
Size of Adjusted Gross Income
$1
to
$10,000
$10,000
to
$25,000
$25,000
to
$50,000
$50,000
to
$75,000
$75,000
to
$100,000
$100,000
to
$200,000
$200,000
to
$500,000
$500,000
to
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
or
more
Returns Claiming
Charitable
Deductions
37,490,960 527,460 1,971,880 5,850,480 6,881,930 6,294,810 11,305,520 3,652,790 639,210 366,880
Cash Value of Charitable
Deductions Claimed
(in Billions)
$198,552,435 $642,534 $3,997,673 $14,089,611 $19,080,355 $19,851,248 $45,110,012 $26,983,944 $11,468,422 $57,328,636
Percent of Total Income
Claimed as Charitable
Deduction
2.19% 0.54% 0.69% 1.15% 1.62% 1.89% 2.16% 2.27% 2.42% 0.04%
Percent of Total
Charitable Deductions
Claimed
100.00% 0.32% 2.01% 7.10% 9.61% 10.00% 22.72% 13.59% 5.78% 28.87%
Source: Internal Revenue Service
Table 1
ing for varying populations and incomes in states by tracking
adjusted gross income (AGI) and number of claimants of the
charitable deduction in the state. This data comes from the IRS.
Generally, these IRS data releases have roughly a two-year time
lag between revenue collections and publication of the data,
hence ending the time series in 2012. As seen in Figure 1, total
charitable giving from individuals, as reported in IRS data, was
$197.1 billion or $198.6 billion when the District of Columbia
is included.
6. THE STATE FACTOR
6 • AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL
2014 Charitable Contributions by Type
of Recipient Organization ($ in Billions)
Religion
$114.90
Education
$54.62
Health
$30.37
Public-Society Benefit
$26.29
Arts, Culture, Humanities
$17.23
Human Services
$42.10
Gifts to Foundations
$41.62
International Affairs
$15.10
Environment/Animals
$10.50 – 3%
Gifts to Individuals
$6.42 – 2%
As Table 1 shows, taxpayers with incomes of more than $1
million accounted for the largest share, in dollars, of charita-
ble deductions claimed and the highest dollar total amount.
However, the top income group is far from the majority of
taxpayers claiming the charitable deduction. It is worth not-
ing that there are some taxpayers in each income group who
claim the charitable deduction even if more than 70 percent
of charitable deductions are claimed by those with incomes
of $100,000 or more.
It should be noted that the IRS data tracks giving from individ-
uals as claimed on their tax returns (via the charitable deduc-
tion). To put this in perspective, Figure 2 highlights data from
the Giving USA report showing that individual charitable dona-
tions accounted for roughly 72 percent of total charitable giving
in 2014, which means that individuals made charitable contri-
butions equal to about 1.9 percent of GDP. The remaining 26
percent of charitable contributions came from bequests, foun-
dations and corporations. Giving USA estimates giving levels by
using a forecasting model that blends relevant trends with data
from the Philanthropy Panel Study series, which is a longitudi-
nal study that follows 8,000 households over many years and
records their giving habits.
According to IRS statistics as seen in table 1, roughly 2.2 percent
of total AGI was claimed as charitable contributions in 2012.
These charitable contributions go to a variety of organizations,
including religious organizations, education related causes, hu-
man and disaster services, health related causes and others as
illustrated in Figure 3. As the figure demonstrates, charitable
giving is spread across categories that very much mimic and
supplement the functions of government.
The IRS data is calculated by tracking which taxpayers use the
charitable giving deduction on their tax returns. The Giving USA
report, however, estimates that in 2014, about 17 percent of
individual charitable giving goes unreported on individual tax
forms (i.e. non-itemizing donors).7
Over recent decades, the
amount of unreported charitable giving has varied. Typically,
this number is between 15 and 20 percent. That remaining 15
to 20 percent of individual charitable deductions are not record-
ed by the IRS because those donations are either larger than
the level of the taxpayer’s tax liability and hence not claimed, or
that taxpayer did not have sufficiently high itemized deductions
Figure 2
Reproduction of Giving USA Chart
Figure 3
72%Individuals
$258.51
15%
8%
5%
Foundations
$53.97
Bequests
$28.13
Corporations
$17.77
2014 Charitable Contributions by Source
($ in Billions)
32%
15%
12%
12%
8%
7%
5%
4%
Reproduction of Giving USA Chart
7. THE EFFECT OF STATE TAXES ON CHARITABLE GIVING
THE STATE FACTOR • 7
such that they could improve their tax liability by claiming the
charitable deduction coupled with other deductions, relative to
simply taking the standard deduction.
It should be noted that not all charitable contributions are cash
donations. Individuals can also donate investment assets or
goods and claim those donations against their tax liability. In
2012, 24.6 percent of all donations were non-cash, according
to the Tax Foundation.8
Figure 4 from the Tax Foundation breaks
those non-cash donations into relevant subcategories.
Another data limitation when calculating rates of charita-
ble giving is the largely unreported and difficult to quantify
donation of time—volunteer hours. The National Center for
Charitable Statistics estimates that in 2012, 64.5 million peo-
ple, about 26.5 percent of the U.S. population, volunteered
at least once. Overall in 2012, the Center estimates that 12.7
billion hours were spent volunteering, with an estimated val-
uation of $259.6 billion.9
The economic value of the volunteer
time goes unquantified in these estimates of charitable giving
due to data limitations.
While the above data demonstrate the contours of charitable
giving in the United States, this study will focus on charitable
giving from itemized filers as reported by the IRS. Due to vast
population and income differences between the states, this
report will focus on charitable giving per number of claimants
of the federal charitable deduction in a state and as a percent-
age of the state’s AGI, which provides an appropriate normal-
izing benchmark.
Figure 4
Noncash Charitable Contributions in 2012 (Percentage of Total)
51.4%
Corporate
Stock, Mutual
Funds,
and Other
Investments
21.9%
8.7%
6.5% 6.4%
2.8%
1.1% 1.0% 0.3%
0
5
10
15
20
$25
Clothing Household
Items
Other
Donations
(Including
Intellectual
Property)
Real
Estate and
Easements
Art and
Collectibles
Cars and
Other
Vehicles
Electronics Food
“Overall in 2012, the Center estimates that
12.7 billion hours were spent volunteering,
with an estimated valuation of $259.6 billion.”
Reproduction of Tax Foundation chart using Internal Revenue Service Data
NoncashCharitableGiving(inMillions)
8. THE STATE FACTOR
8 • AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL
A Review of Previous Research on
Charitable Giving
state-specific analysis of how state tax policy affects levels
and growth of giving has generally been an under-studied
element of charitable giving. Most of the research on the top-
ic has examined federal fiscal policy. Previous research on the
connection between tax and budget policy and charitable giving
has focused on two general frames of analysis. The first frame
analyzes giving with respect to an increase in taxes, mostly on
the federal level, and considers the effect of the federal chari-
table deduction, thus creating an implicit after tax discounted
cost of charitable giving. Call this the price model of charitable
giving. The second way giving has been analyzed is by compar-
ing the movement of federal government spending to charita-
ble giving to see if spending “crowds out” charitable giving. This
effect can be seen as potential donors reduce charitable giving
as citizens perceive that they have already paid their necessary
social burden to society or have budgets that are overextended
by taxes, such that additional giving is financially difficult. This is
the crowding out model of charitable giving and taxation.
“A state-specific analysis of how state
tax policy affects levels and growth of
giving has generally been an under-
studied element of charitable giving.
Most of the research on the topic has
examined federal fiscal policy.”
A: PRICE MODEL ANALYSIS
The price model focuses on the “elasticity” of charitable giv-
ing assuming changes in net after-tax prices. Elasticity is the
response of a consumer—in this case, consumption is the “pur-
chase” of a charitable donation—to a relative change in price.
That net effect is the combination of taxes reducing income
available for charitable giving while the charitable deduction
offers an opportunity to reduce the increased tax liability with
additional giving. Taxpayers can opt to give income to charity
instead of paying taxes to the government, and as their taxes
go up, they have more of a tax burden to offset with charita-
ble giving. These studies are conducted at both the aggregate,
nation-wide level and also on the individual level using data
indicative of a taxpayer’s marginal response to an increase in
tax burden.
The results of the academic literature offer a range of conclu-
sions that vary based on the given data set, research design
and empirical parameters used, but generally conclude an esti-
mate of “unit elasticity,” meaning charitable giving is neither in-
creased nor decreased’ by a change in federal taxes.10
This sug-
gests that a desire to reduce a personal tax liability has roughly
equal effect than the simple income effect of having less money
available to give charity, given a tax increase. However, this state
factor indicates that state taxes are closely linked to charitable
giving in the states.
B: CROWDING OUT MODEL
The results of the “crowding out” studies on charitable giving
stand somewhat at odds with the literature in the price elastic-
ity of after-tax charitable giving. These studies compare chang-
es in government spending with changes in charitable giving.
These crowding out studies are analyzed from the aggregate,
nation-wide level of spending and total charitable donations.
Many of these studies separate specific types of government
spending and charitable giving differentiated by category and
empirically matched in their effect, such as government edu-
cation funding and donations to educational institutions. The
matching method allows researchers to see whether certain
areas of spending increases create a larger or smaller change in
charitable giving relative to other areas.
The literature again has mixed results but generally suggests
that crowding out does occur, particularly for certain subcat-
A
9. THE EFFECT OF STATE TAXES ON CHARITABLE GIVING
THE STATE FACTOR • 9
As government spends more, citizens
tend to give less, either overall or
in certain categories of government
spending and related giving.
egories of spending.11
That is, as government spends more,
citizens tend to give less, either overall or in certain catego-
ries of government spending and related giving. Those esti-
mates tend to stay around the 0.50 level, meaning a 1 percent
change in government spending leads to a 0.5 percent change
in charitable giving.12
C: RECONCILING THE PRICE MODEL AND CROWDING
OUT MODEL
The notion that taxpayers respond to a tax increase by hold-
ing charitable giving constant, while spending increases crowd
out charitable giving produces a slight paradox. One problem
with some of the price literature is that in general it ignores
the medium-term and long-term effects of taxation on income
growth. While individuals may respond in the short-term to a
tax increase by increasing charitable giving, their income may
grow slower in future periods, reducing their capacity for char-
itable giving. There is a tremendous body of evidence that
taxes do indeed hurt income growth and tax cuts improve in-
come growth.13
Taxpayers also may shift their charitable giving
away from areas of increased spending which is potentially the
spending that created the necessity for a tax increase. They
may feel that given that government is doing more to help peo-
ple in a certain way, they have less reason to give charitably
towards that cause, particularly since they are already paying
more in taxes for that spending.
Moreover, the difference in the literature may be the result of
the frame of analysis—aggregate, overall level of society or indi-
vidual marginal, short-term responses. The two research tracks
ask slightly different questions and at different levels of analysis.
Finally, the level of federal spending is not firmly tied to the
level of taxation given the record of extensive deficit spending,
particularly given the United States’ status as the world reserve
currency. Taxes and spending do not perfectly match, so some
divergence in results is likely given that different measures are
being considered.
Perfectly recreating this analysis on the state level raises addi-
tional issues. With respect to the crowding out literature, fed-
eral spending is not tied directly to federal taxes, given the au-
thority to borrow large amounts of money and continue deficit
spending, as noted above. Due to 49 out of the 50 states main-
taining a formal balanced budget requirement, states generally
do not have this fiscal luxury. Moreover, the federal government
provides a tremendous amount of the funding for state-imple-
mented spending through federal grants, but those grants are
neither evenly distributed nor are they neutral across the states.
Hence, states have their own wedge between taxes and spend-
ing, and that wedge varies significantly by state.
Because of these compositional issues in the taxes and spend-
ing fiscal mix noted above, this research uses taxes at the aggre-
gate, state-wide level to analyze the possibility of crowding out
at the state level. Additionally, it may well be the case, at least at
the state level, that citizens are more aware of their level of tax-
ation than they are in regards to the level of spending, making
them more cognitively responsive to taxes than to spending in
terms of crowding out. Finally, the crowding out effect of taxes
better accounts for the possibility of a long-term growth effect
from taxes to be adequately picked up in a regression analysis.
Analyzing this question using a state analysis model provides
additional statistical power given its differentiation, as will be
discussed further in the empirical section of the paper.
10. THE STATE FACTOR
10 • AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL
Comparing State Charitable Giving
ubsection A examines the levels of charitable giving in
each state, focusing on the ten states that are most gener-
ous in their giving and the ten states that are least generous in
their giving. To properly consider these figures given differenc-
es in state income and population, the analysis adjusts them
using two separate measures. Charitable giving is considered
per person, measured by the number of individual claimants
that gave a gift of at least a dollar, controlling for population.
Separately, charitable giving is considered as a percent of total
state income, creating a measure of giving per dollar of total
state income. These figures are considered over two time pe-
riods: 1997-2012 and 2008-2012. The full time frame available
from the IRS statistics on charitable giving ranges from 1997-
2012. The 2008-2012 time frame is considered separately to
give a more recent look at charitable giving in the wake of the
Great Recession.
After examining levels of charitable giving, Subsection B displays
and reviews the growth in the rates of charitable giving to see
Charitable giving is considered per
person, measured by the number of
individual claimants that gave a gift of at
least a dollar, controlling for population.
Separately, charitable giving is considered
as a percent of total state income, creating
a measure of giving per dollar of total
state income.
S
movement in the giving levels, as opposed to static levels alone.
Again, two time frames are considered: 1997-2012 and 2008-
2012. The growth of charitable giving per claimant, charitable
giving per dollar of total income, and charitable giving growth
rates unadjusted by population or income are considered. The
top and bottom 10 states are displayed and discussed for these
three measures.
Next, in Subsection C, the levels of charitable giving for the top
and bottom 10 fastest growing states in terms of AGI are con-
sidered. This is to consider whether income growth drives char-
itable giving. Two time frames are considered for the growth
of charitable giving and for the growth of AGI—1997-2012 and
2008-2012. All five measures from above are considered in
reviewing the results of the fastest growing states: giving per
claimant, growth of giving per claimant, giving per dollar of
income, growth of giving per dollar of income and unadjusted
growth of giving.
Last, in Subsection D, the levels of charitable giving for the states
with the highest and lowest burdens of taxation are considered.
These figures are considered to display the impact that taxes
have on charitable giving. To measure taxation, three measures
are displayed and reviewed: Rich States, Poor States: ALEC-Laffer
State Economic Competitiveness Index, the total state tax bur-
den as a percent of state income and the states with the high-
est and lowest personal income taxes. The data is considered
over the same time frames as the sections above: 1997-2012
and 2008-2012. Once again, all five measures from above are
considered in reviewing the results of the fastest growing states:
giving per claimant, growth of giving per claimant, giving per
dollar of income, growth of giving per dollar of income and un-
adjusted growth of giving.
Astute observers will note that Wyoming does well in levels of
charitable giving and tops each metric of growth in charitable
giving by an extremely large margin. This data anomaly serves
as an extreme outlier due entirely to a large increase in charita-
ble giving from 2011 to 2012. Over this time period, charitable
giving in Wyoming increased by a multiple of seven, while to-
tal adjusted gross income doubled. This is not an error, as con-
firmed in a conversation with the IRS, but rather a result of a
large amount of income going to charitable giving in a single
year. The underlying causes are not easily deciphered from IRS
data alone, but it is likely that a few, or even just one, very high
income individual(s) gave a very large gift to charity.
11. THE EFFECT OF STATE TAXES ON CHARITABLE GIVING
THE STATE FACTOR • 11
A: LEVELS OF CHARITABLE GIVING IN THE STATES
From 2008 to 2012, Wyoming, Utah and South Dakota were the
top three states for charitable giving per claimant while New
Hampshire, Maine and Rhode Island were the lowest. As seen
in Table 2, the same states maintained the same positions when
the time period is extended from 1997 to 2012.
Table 2
Average Charitable Giving per Claimant
2008-2012 Average Real Charitable Giving
per Claimant
1997-2012 Average Real Charitable Giving
per Claimant
Rank Level State Rank Level State
1 $24,275.88 Wyoming 1 $14,749.10 Wyoming
2 $7,930.33 Utah 2 $7,844.61 Utah
3 $7,683.77 South Dakota 3 $6,584.67 South Dakota
4 $6,861.20 Oklahoma 4 $6,580.77 Tennessee
5 $6,634.68 Texas 5 $6,419.94 Texas
6 $6,584.50 Tennessee 6 $6,109.32 Oklahoma
7 $6,036.11 Mississippi 7 $6,039.10 Arkansas
8 $5,981.30 Arkansas 8 $5,936.22 Mississippi
9 $5,832.90 Alabama 9 $5,657.97 Alabama
10 $5,557.56 Louisiana 10 $5,438.85 New York
41 $3,865.79 Delaware 41 $3,878.37 Iowa
42 $3,821.21 Oregon 42 $3,877.13 Oregon
43 $3,777.08 Ohio 43 $3,774.06 New Jersey
44 $3,581.99 Vermont 44 $3,736.94 Ohio
45 $3,524.76 Hawaii 45 $3,625.52 Hawaii
46 $3,484.43 New Jersey 46 $3,496.35 Vermont
47 $3,328.15 Wisconsin 47 $3,388.44 Wisconsin
48 $3,006.98 New Hampshire 48 $3,221.21 New Hampshire
49 $2,980.73 Maine 49 $3,095.02 Maine
50 $2,929.28 Rhode Island 50 $2,991.64 Rhode Island
Source: Internal Revenue Service
As Table 3 on the next page shows, Utah, Wyoming and Georgia
were the top three states for charitable giving as a percentage
of total AGI both from 2008 to 2012 and from 1997 to 2012.
From 2008 to 2012, New Hampshire, North Dakota and West
Virginia are the states with the least charitable giving as a per-
centage of AGI. When the time period is extended back, cover-
ing 1997 to 2012, West Virginia, North Dakota and New Hamp-
shire are the three states with the least charitable giving as a
percentage of AGI.
12. THE STATE FACTOR
12 • AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL
Table 3
B: GROWTH IN RATES OF CHARITABLE GIVING IN THE STATES
While levels of charitable giving over time is an important met-
ric to understand, growth in charitable giving portrays a dynam-
ic picture of charitable giving in the states. Growth in charitable
giving shows which states are improving relative to where they
started and which states are stagnating or declining relative to
the baseline year.
As shown on the next page in Table 4 from 2008 to 2012, Wyo-
ming, North Dakota and Connecticut grew rates of total chari-
table giving more than any other state. From 1997 to 2012, Wy-
oming, Texas and South Dakota grew rates of charitable giving
more than any other states. The 2008 to 2012 time frame saw
declines in charitable giving for many states, most likely due to
the effects of the recession, with Oklahoma, Virginia and Loui-
siana declining more than any others during that period. From
Charitable Giving as a Percentage of Total Adjusted Gross Income
2008-2012 Average Real Charitable Giving as a
Percentage of AGI
1997-2012 Average Real Charitable Giving as a
Percentage of AGI
Rank Level State Rank Level State
1 4.75% Utah 1 4.90% Utah
2 4.53% Wyoming 2 3.25% Wyoming
3 2.94% Georgia 3 2.92% Georgia
4 2.90% Alabama 4 2.88% Alabama
5 2.72% Mississippi 5 2.81% Oklahoma
6 2.69% Oklahoma 6 2.75% South Carolina
7 2.67% Idaho 7 2.70% Maryland
8 2.66% South Carolina 8 2.69% Idaho
9 2.54% North Carolina 9 2.63% North Carolina
10 2.53% Maryland 10 2.63% Mississippi
41 1.70% New Mexico 41 1.85% Ohio
42 1.66% Hawaii 42 1.83% Wisconsin
43 1.66% New Jersey 43 1.75% New Mexico
44 1.50% Rhode Island 44 1.60% Rhode Island
45 1.47% Vermont 45 1.54% Vermont
46 1.46% Alaska 46 1.54% Alaska
47 1.37% Maine 47 1.52% Maine
48 1.34% West Virginia 48 1.40% New Hampshire
49 1.29% North Dakota 49 1.39% North Dakota
50 1.24% New Hampshire 50 1.32% West Virginia
Source: Internal Revenue Service
13. THE EFFECT OF STATE TAXES ON CHARITABLE GIVING
THE STATE FACTOR • 13
1997 to 2012, Michigan trails Maine and Ohio for lowest growth
in rates of charitable giving. It is very likely that these low levels
of growth in charitable giving were a result of continued periods
of low economic growth in these states, particularly the poor
economic performance of Michigan during this time period.
To put this in perspective, real growth in charitable giving across
the U.S. in 2012 rose 47 percent since 1997. That means, even
Growth in Total Charitable Giving
2008-2012 Total Real Growth 1997-2012 Total Real Growth
Rank Level State Rank Level State
1 756.86% Wyoming 1 1220.26% Wyoming
2 29.99% North Dakota 2 98.88% Texas
3 22.35% Connecticut 3 97.77% South Dakota
4 21.52% Massachusetts 4 85.25% Montana
5 18.81% Kansas 5 83.50% North Dakota
6 17.17% South Dakota 6 76.49% Nevada
7 17.05% Washington 7 60.64% Oklahoma
8 15.54% California 8 58.79% Georgia
9 13.13% Nebraska 9 57.85% Kansas
10 12.53% Montana 10 57.62% Washington
41 -0.56% West Virginia 41 20.12% Pennsylvania
42 -0.80% Maine 42 19.01% Indiana
43 -0.83% New Jersey 43 18.92% Wisconsin
44 -1.21% Alabama 44 18.44% New Hampshire
45 -3.30% Arizona 45 13.80% Rhode Island
46 -3.45% Minnesota 46 12.52% New Jersey
47 -4.08% Delaware 47 10.78% Delaware
48 -4.98% Louisiana 48 8.92% Ohio
49 -5.52% Virginia 49 5.02% Maine
50 -10.30% Oklahoma 50 1.57% Michigan
Table 4
Source: Internal Revenue Service
accounting for inflation, charitable causes received $59,294,449
more in 2012 than they did in 1997. From 2008 to 2012, as the
U.S. experienced a significant recession and began to recover,
charitable giving in the U.S. grew by 9.4 percent, or a total of
$16,872,925.
Wyoming, Nevada and Florida experienced the highest rate of
charitable giving growth per claimant from 2008 to 2012, as
14. THE STATE FACTOR
14 • AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL
noted in Table 5. Louisiana, Virginia and Oklahoma actually de-
clined in rates of charitable giving per claimant in that period,
while every other state experienced at least some growth in the
rate of charitable giving per claimant. From 1997 to 2012, Wy-
oming, Oklahoma and North Dakota grew rates of charitable
giving per claimant more than other states, while Maine, Del-
aware and New Jersey grew charitable giving per claimant the
least, and at rates significantly lower than other states, even in
the bottom 10.
As charitable giving per claimant falls, as was the case for Louisi-
ana, Oklahoma and Virginia from 2008 to 2012, charitable caus-
es receive less in support per individual claimant on average,
even though charitable giving overall may be increasing. This
was not the case for Louisiana, Oklahoma and Virginia since the
overall rate of charitable giving in those states also decreased
during that period.
Table 5
Growth of Average Charitable Giving per Claimant
2008-2012 Total Real Growth 1997-2012 Total Real Growth
Rank Level State Rank Level State
1 758.08% Wyoming 1 820.43% Wyoming
2 38.31% Nevada 2 57.83% Oklahoma
3 26.12% Florida 3 56.15% North Dakota
4 26.11% Connecticut 4 55.54% Montana
5 23.73% Massachusetts 5 37.54% Kansas
6 22.69% North Dakota 6 37.40% Nevada
7 21.54% Kansas 7 35.82% Connecticut
8 21.44% Washington 8 35.23% Vermont
9 17.54% California 9 33.27% South Dakota
10 16.84% Idaho 10 32.71% Alaska
41 5.16% South Carolina 41 13.48% Pennsylvania
42 3.25% Maine 42 13.28% Tennessee
43 2.94% West Virginia 43 13.19% Mississippi
44 2.81% New Jersey 44 13.05% Wisconsin
45 1.45% Mississippi 45 10.68% Rhode Island
46 0.70% Minnesota 46 10.48% New Hampshire
47 0.45% Delaware 47 9.87% North Carolina
48 -2.44% Oklahoma 48 3.75% New Jersey
49 -3.59% Virginia 49 2.73% Delaware
50 -5.33% Louisiana 50 2.64% Maine
Source: Internal Revenue Service
15. THE EFFECT OF STATE TAXES ON CHARITABLE GIVING
THE STATE FACTOR • 15
From 2008 to 2012, Wyoming, Connecticut and Kansas were the
three states with the highest rates of charitable giving growth
as a percentage of AGI; Oklahoma, Virginia and Minnesota were
the states that declined most in rates of charitable giving as a
percentage of AGI. From 1997 to 2012, Wyoming, Mississippi
and South Dakota grew rates of charitable giving as a percent-
age of AGI the most. Maine, Delaware and New Jersey declined
in rates of charitable giving the most during that period. These
figures can be seen in Table 6.
When looking at the rates of growth in charitable giving as a
percentage of AGI, from 1997 to 2012, nine states actually ex-
perienced a reduction in rates of charitable giving per dollar of
income rather than simply growing modestly. It is noteworthy
that six out of the nine states tend to embrace a larger role for
government spending and generally higher tax rates. In fact, of
these nine states, Hawaii, New York, Minnesota and New Jersey
are also among the nine states with the highest state personal
income taxes. Of the nine states that do not levy a personal in-
Growth of Charitable Giving as a Percentage of Total Adjusted Gross Income
2008-2012 Total Real Growth 1997-2012 Total Real Growth
Rank Level State Rank Level State
1 456.07% Wyoming 1 459.86% Wyoming
2 18.06% Connecticut 2 33.53% Mississippi
3 14.06% Kansas 3 29.34% South Dakota
4 12.59% Massachusetts 4 29.04% Kansas
5 12.23% Nevada 5 26.82% Georgia
6 10.18% Washington 6 24.85% Tennessee
7 9.21% New Mexico 7 24.75% Montana
8 8.06% New York 8 24.23% Louisiana
9 7.83% Georgia 9 23.77% Texas
10 7.53% California 10 20.49% Connecticut
41 -2.77% West Virginia 41 0.41% Pennsylvania
42 -2.78% Michigan 42 -0.38% Hawaii
43 -3.18% Maine 43 -2.57% New York
44 -3.68% Arizona 44 -2.83% Rhode Island
45 -4.03% Delaware 45 -3.81% Minnesota
46 -4.10% South Carolina 46 -4.02% New Hampshire
47 -6.90% North Dakota 47 -4.07% North Dakota
48 -9.31% Minnesota 48 -5.67% New Jersey
49 -9.75% Virginia 49 -7.44% Delaware
50 -15.80% Oklahoma 50 -10.76% Maine
Table 6
Source: Internal Revenue Service
16. THE STATE FACTOR
16 • AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL
C: INCOME GROWTH AND CHARITABLE GIVING
Once the data was collected, patterns of income growth cor-
responding to increases in charitable giving growth emerged.
In fact, several major indicators of economic growth were
linked to growth in charitable giving. This bears major impor-
tance in understanding charitable giving as a phenomenon
driven at least in part by economic performance and suggests
policies that enhance income growth will also enhance char-
itable giving.
Growth in a state’s AGI tracked closely with growth in the state’s
charitable giving rates. As the total AGI in a state increased, the
rate of growth in charitable giving also tended to be higher, as
Table 7 illustrates. The 10 states with the most robust growth
in AGI over the past five years, not counting the outlier of Wy-
oming, had an average growth in charitable giving per claimant
of 14.04 percent from 2008 to 2012. By contrast the average
rate of growth in charitable giving per claimant among the 10
states with the lowest growth in AGI was just 10.41 percent in
the same time period.
Table 7
* These averages exclude the outlier of Wyoming, which, if included, would only bolster these results
come tax, only one state, New Hampshire, experienced a decline
in charitable giving as a percentage of AGI from 1997 to 2012.
As far as states that grew charitable giving as a percentage of
AGI from 1997 to 2012, three of the top nine states, South Da-
kota, Tennessee and Texas, do not tax personal income. This
would be four if the outlier of Wyoming is included. None of the
states with the highest income taxes are among the top nine
states for the most growth in charitable giving as a percentage
of AGI from 1997 to 2012.
Comparing the Growth of Charitable Giving in the States with the Fastest and Slowest Growth in AGI
Percent Growth in
Charitable Giving
per Claimant
(2008-2012)
Percent Growth in
Charitable Giving
per Claimant
(1997-2012)
Percent Growth in
Charitable Giving
as a Percentage of
AGI (2008-2012)
Percent Growth in
Charitable Giving
as a Percentage of
AGI (1997-2012)
Percent total
Growth in
Charitable Giving
(2008-2012)
Percent total
Growth in
Charitable Giving
(1997-2012)
Average of the 10
States with the Fastest
Growth in AGI (5yrs)
13.35 32.02 1.36 14.78 14.66 65.84
Average of the 10
States with the Slowest
Growth in AGI (5yrs)
9.74 17.16 2.65 12.50 2.63 39.52
Average of the 10
States with the Fastest
Growth in AGI (16yrs)
12.28 35.00 -1.89 12.99 8.93 72.71
Average of the 10
States with the Slowest
Growth in AGI (16yrs)
10.51 16.81 1.85 10.93 3.03 26.01
10 States with the Fastest Growth in AGI (5yrs) WY, ND, SD, NE, MT, TX, IA, CO, AR, MA
10 States with the Slowest Growth in AGI (5yrs) LA, AL, NJ, NV, NM, DE, MO, AZ, MS, IL
10 States with the Fastest Growth in AGI (16yrs) WY, ND, TX, SD, MT, NV, VA, UT, CO, OK
10 States with the Slowest Growth in AGI (16yrs) MI, OH, IN, IL, MO, AL, WI, KY, MS, RI
Source: Authors’ Calculations using Internal Revenue Service Data
17. THE EFFECT OF STATE TAXES ON CHARITABLE GIVING
THE STATE FACTOR • 17
Controlling for Wyoming, the 10 states that experienced the
highest rates of AGI growth over the last five years grew chari-
table giving per claimant by 32.02 percent and by 14.78 percent
as a percentage of AGI from 1997 to 2012. During the same
time period, the 10 states with the lowest AGI growth in the
past five years grew charitable giving by an average of 17.16
percent per claimant and by 12.5 percent as a percentage of
AGI. Generally, the 10 states growing AGI the most over the past
five years are also growing charitable giving rates in almost ev-
ery metric more than the 10 states growing AGI the least over
the past five years.
This trend is also true when AGI growth is measured over a
longer time period. Excluding Wyoming, the 10 states with the
most robust growth in AGI from 1997 to 2012, had an average
growth in charitable giving per claimant of 12.28 percent from
2008 to 2012. By contrast, the average rate of growth in chari-
table giving per claimant among the 10 states with the lowest
growth in AGI was 10.51 percent in that time period.
From 1997 to 2012, again controlling for Wyoming, the 10
states that experienced the highest rates of AGI growth grew
charitable giving per claimant by 35 percent and by 12.99 per-
cent as a percentage of AGI. As Table 7 shows, during the same
time period the 10 states with the lowest AGI growth in the
past 16 years grew charitable giving by an average of 16.81 per-
cent per claimant and by 10.93 percent as a percentage of AGI.
Similar to the shorter time period, the 10 states growing AGI
the most over the past 16 years are also growing charitable giv-
ing rates faster in most comparisons with the 10 states growing
AGI the least. From 1997 to 2012, the 10 states with the fastest
growing AGI over the last 16 years grew their total charitable
giving nearly three times more than the charitable giving of the
10 states with the slowest AGI growth over the past 16 years.
The average growth in charitable giving of the 10 states with the
fastest AGI growth tends to be higher than the 10 states with
the lowest AGI growth over either time period. In fact, the only
measure where the 10 states with the fastest growth in AGI do
not grow charitable giving faster than the 10 states with the
slowest growth in AGI is in the growth in charitable giving as a
percentage of AGI from 2008 to 2012. This is true for both the
five-year and 16-year time periods. However, when total growth
in charitable giving is measured, the 10 states with the fastest
growth in AGI from 2008 to 2012 grew total charitable giving by
13.4 percent in that time period. That is more than four times
the 3.08 percent total growth in charitable giving experienced
by the 10 states with the slowest growth in AGI from 2008 to
2012. Similarly, the 10 states with the fastest growth in AGI from
1997 to 2012 grew total charitable giving by 8.93 percent from
2008 to 2012, more than double the 4.12 percent total growth
in charitable giving from the 10 states with the slowest growth
in AGI from 1997 to 2012.
In all the cases examined in this research, one notable conclu-
sion is that the states with higher rates of economic growth al-
ways grow total charitable giving at a faster rate than their low
performing counterparts. With higher rates of economic growth
translating into higher rates of growth in charitable giving, law-
makers have a tremendous opportunity: prioritizing economic
growth will encourage more charitable giving. Just as economic
growth increases opportunity, it also tends to strengthen civil
society by encouraging more growth in charitable giving. Thus,
a state that grows faster not only creates more income for its cit-
izens through more jobs and higher wages, it also creates higher
capacity for social assistance to those not fully integrated into
the labor force and unable to share the gains of booming eco-
nomic performance.
With higher rates of economic growth
translating into higher rates of growth
in charitable giving, lawmakers have a
tremendous opportunity: prioritizing
economic growth will encourage more
charitable giving.
18. THE STATE FACTOR
18 • AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL
D: PRO-GROWTH TAX POLICY AND CHARITABLE GIVING
To examine the relationship between rates of growth in chari-
table giving and generally pro-growth tax and fiscal policy envi-
ronments, growth in rates of charitable giving were compared
with three different metrics that signify states as having gener-
ally pro-growth tax and economic policies.
First is an analysis of rates of growth in charitable giving in the
states ranking in the top and bottom 10 for economic outlook in
the most recent edition of Rich States, Poor States: ALEC-Laffer
State Economic Competitiveness Index.14
The economic outlook
rankings are based on 15 equally weighted tax and fiscal policy
variables linked to increased rates of economic growth.15
Next,
rates of growth in charitable giving were measured against a
state’s overall tax burden, using the Tax Foundation’s annual
Table 8
* These averages exclude the outlier of Wyoming, which, if included, would only bolster these results
In every category, over each time period, the
nine no income tax states grew their rates of
charitable giving more than the nine states
with the highest income taxes.
Pro-Growth Tax Policy and Growth of Charitable Giving
Percent Growth in
Charitable Giving
per Claimant
(2008-2012)
Percent Growth in
Charitable Giving
per Claimant
(1997-2012)
Percent Growth in
Charitable Giving
as a Percentage of
AGI (2008-2012)
Percent Growth in
Charitable Giving
as a Percentage of
AGI (1997-2012)
Percent total
Growth in
Charitable Giving
(2008-2012)
Percent total
Growth in
Charitable Giving
(1997-2012)
RSPS 8th Ed. Average
of Top 10 States in
Economic Outlook
16.31 25.85 1.71 13.15 9.73 59.37
RSPS 8th Ed. Average of
Bottom 10 States
in Economic Outlook
10.84 23.01 3.10 5.29 7.58 33.66
Average of the 10
States with the Lowest
Tax Burden
10.73 22.00 0.53 15.79 4.38 57.08
Average of the 10
States with the Highest
Tax Burden
10.62 20.04 3.42 3.42 6.85 27.69
Average of 9 No
Personal Income Tax
States
16.53 24.24 2.99 15.00 8.05 53.79
Average of the 9 States
with the Highest
Personal Income Taxes
8.97 20.80 1.71 4.67 5.12 30.37
RSPS 8th Ed. Top 10 States UT, ND, IN, NC, AZ, ID, GA, WY, SD, NV
RSPS 8th Ed. Bottom 10 States NY, VT, MN, CT, NJ, OR, CA, MT, ME, PA
10 States with the Lowest Tax Burden WY, AK, SD, TX, LA, TN, NH, NV, SC, AL
10 States with the Highest Tax Burden NY, NJ, CT, CA, WI, MN, MD, RI, VT, PA
Nine States with No Personal Income Tax AK, FL, NV, SD, TX, WA, WY, TN, NH
Nine States with the Highest Personal Income Taxes CA, NY, HI, OR, NJ, MN, VT, MD, KY
data set.16
Finally, as personal income taxes are among the most
damaging to overall economic growth, growth in rates of char-
itable giving were compared between the nine states that do
not have a personal income tax and the nine states that main-
tain the highest personal income taxes. All of these results are
summarized in Table 8.
Source: Authors’ Calculations using Data from the Internal Revenue Service, ALEC Research and the Tax Foundation
19. THE EFFECT OF STATE TAXES ON CHARITABLE GIVING
THE STATE FACTOR • 19
Looking at these three metrics and measuring rates of chari-
table giving in these states provides for interesting results dis-
played in Table 8. The 10 states with the best economic outlook
in Rich States, Poor States experienced higher rates of charitable
giving than the bottom 10 states in nearly every category. The
top 10 economic outlook states even grew charitable giving as a
percentage of AGI from 1997 to 2012 at more than double the
rate of the bottom ten states. From 1997 to 2012, the 10 states
with the lowest tax burdens grew their charitable giving as a
percentage of AGI at a rate of nearly five times that of the 10
states with the highest tax burdens.
The results of comparing the average rates of growth in charita-
ble giving from the nine no income tax states to the highest in-
come tax states are particularly striking. In every category, over
each time period, the nine no income tax states grew their rates
of charitable giving more than the nine states with the highest
income taxes. Additionally, the nine states with no income tax
grew charitable giving as a percentage of AGI nearly three times
as much as the nine states with the highest income taxes from
1997 to 2012.
The trend in these results is clear; the states with more pro-
growth tax and fiscal policies tend to also have higher rates of
growth in charitable giving, as one would hypothesize based
on the observable relationship between economic perfor-
mance and charitable giving and the academic consensus on
tax policy and economic growth. But to examine this apparent
trend more comprehensively, research deeper into the data
with robust tools of statistical analysis were used and yielded
strong results.
REGRESSION ANALYSIS
n previous sections, this paper analyzed and revealed trends
which suggest charitable giving is driven by strong income
growth and therefore can be similarly harmed by policies that
hinder income and production growth. High tax rates, partic-
ularly when high taxes are levied on income, damage income
growth according to the bulk of the research on the topic.17
Moreover, besides stifling income growth, taxes extract resourc-
es from citizens that they may otherwise use to fund charita-
ble endeavors, or may convince citizens that they have already
done their part to socially contribute through taxes, thereby
crowding out charitable contributions. Conversely, it is the case
that the same tax cuts that boost economic opportunity for a
state’s working citizens also provide a greater cushion for the
less fortunate by strengthening civil society. Trend analysis and
reviewing basic correlations is an important step in evaluating a
public policy hypothesis, but the tools of econometric analysis
provide an additional layer of more rigorous statistical analysis
to that evaluation.
To examine charitable giving in this study, data was collected
from the IRS on the total dollar amounts of federal charitable
deductions claimed by taxpayers, differentiated by state be-
tween 1997 and 2012, the only years available. First, the Tax
Foundation’s annual measure of state and local tax burdens,
which were only available up until 2011, measure total state
and local taxes as a percentage of income. Second, this study
also collected total personal income tax collections by state
from the Census Bureau and adjusted it as a percentage of
state AGI, thus creating an effective state income tax rate. That
data was available starting in 1998 and up to 2012. Control vari-
ables that account for the effect on charitable giving of total
state AGI, number of individuals filing a tax return in the giv-
en state, and income concentration among those making over
$200,000 of AGI.
Econometric analysis calculates an estimate of the relationship
between variables as well as measuring the statistical strength
of that relationship. Hence, this paper will discuss the strength
of the relationship in terms of the “p-value” being “statistically
significant” or statistically strong, and also interpret what those
results practically mean.
The authors ran four multivariate regressions in order to study
the effect of economic performance and taxes on individual
charitable giving. Regressions examined both the level of the
various variables in raw terms and the growth in those same
variables, substituting two measures of tax policy for robust
analysis—tax burden as a percent of income and the effec-
tive income tax rate on state AGI. All regressions were run
using the state fixed effects specification. An in depth review
of the empirical analysis, including summary regression re-
sults tables, can be reviewed in the working paper available at
www.ALEC.org/giving_and_taxes.
I
20. THE STATE FACTOR
20 • AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL
A: ANALYZING LEVELS OF CHARITABLE GIVING, LEVELS OF
ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND TAX BURDEN
When considering total tax burden, this State Factor found that
an increase in tax burden of roughly 1 percentage point of total
state income results in roughly a 0.09 percentage point decrease
in measured charitable donations as a percent of income. As
noted earlier in the paper, charitable giving as a percent of AGI
ranges from roughly 5.2 percent down to 1.15 percent across
states and years. As such, total tax burden appears to have a
large effect on charitable giving. The opposite of this figure is
also true—a decrease in taxes is associated with an increase in
charitable giving. This is statistically significant at the 0.000 lev-
el, which is a strong statistical relationship.
Turning from total tax burden to the personal income tax bur-
den, this study found a larger magnitude of effect. When consid-
ered alongside AGI, a 1 percentage point increase in the person-
al income tax burden is associated with a 0.10 percent decrease
in charitable giving as a percent of state income. Again, charita-
ble giving as a percent of AGI ranges from roughly 5.2 percent
down to 1.15 percent across states and years. Similar to above,
this suggests taxes have a large effect on charitable giving. Also
similar to above, the opposite is statistically true—a decrease
in taxes is associated with an increase in charitable giving. This
measurement is statistically significant at roughly the 0.050 lev-
el, which is strong.
The evidence from these two regressions—total tax burden and
personal income tax burden—suggests that income has a large
and significant positive effect on charitable giving. Moreover,
the results suggest that taxes have a statistically significant ef-
fect on charitable giving and that the magnitude of that rela-
tionship is strong. Meaning these variables are highly correlated
in a strong way and also, that effect is large.
This evidence suggests that some mix of the three pronged ef-
fect of taxes is creating a discrepancy in the level of charitable
giving in the states—reduced current income in the year tax-
es are paid, lower income growth, and reluctance to donate
additional social spending voluntarily given the level of social
spending by government. Simply put, states with higher levels
of taxation have lower levels of charitable giving.
B: ANALYZING GROWTH OF CHARITABLE GIVING, GROWTH
IN ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND TAX BURDEN
Separate from the levels of charitable giving, this State Factor
attempted to see how closely changes in these variables moved
together. Looking at growth rates of charitable giving alongside
growth rates of taxes allows observers see if the two variables
move in unison.
This State Factor finds that a 1 percent increase in the personal
income tax burden is associated with a 0.35 percent decrease
in charitable giving per dollar of state income. This is statisti-
cally significant at the 0.016 level, which is a strong statistical
relationship. The opposite is also statistically true: a decrease in
taxes will correlate with an increase in charitable giving.
Turning to total tax liability, the research finds that a 1 percent
increase in the total tax burden is associated with a 1.16 per-
cent drop in charitable giving per dollar of state income. This
is statistically significant at the 0.021 level, which is a strong
statistical relationship. Again, the opposite is also statistically
true: a decrease in taxes will correlate with an increase in char-
itable giving.
Additionally, it is worth considering that for the seven states
with no income tax burden (Tennessee and New Hampshire
do have a tax on investment income, thus resulting in at least
some measured taxation of income) there is no growth vari-
ation, since the tax burden does not change in any of the 15
years measured. These states tend to also have high growth of
charitable giving, as displayed above. Thus, the lack of variation
When considering total tax burden, this
State Factor found that an increase in tax
burden of roughly 1 percentage point of
total state income results in roughly a 0.09
percentage point decrease in measured
charitable donations as a percent of income.
21. THE EFFECT OF STATE TAXES ON CHARITABLE GIVING
THE STATE FACTOR • 21
in personal income tax burden coupled with high variation for
charitable giving means that the true impact of personal income
taxation may be under-measured in this study’s model.
Similar to the above analysis of levels of taxation and levels of
charitable giving, evidence from regressions comparing the
growth of taxes and growth of giving indicate an adverse rela-
tionship. Some mix of the three pronged effect of taxes is cre-
ating a discrepancy in the growth rates of charitable giving in
the states—reduced current income in the year taxes are paid,
lower income growth, and reluctance to donate additional social
spending voluntarily given the level of social spending by govern-
ment. States that raise taxes see a decline in charitable giving,
and states that reduce taxes see an increase in charitable giving.
Conclusion
he level and growth of charitable giving is strongly related
to the rates and burden of a given state’s taxes. Charity is
at least in part a function of a citizen’s ability to pay and as their
pocketbooks grow, they tend to give more. This tendency is par-
ticularly pronounced when tax changes affect how much wealth
individuals have to potentially give to charity.
Moreover, in regards to the prevalence and magnitude of char-
itable giving, individuals in states with high taxes donate less
and individuals in states with lower taxes donate more. This
is true both for the level of state taxation compared over time
and across states, and the movements in tax burden compared
over time and across states. This reflects significant differenc-
es in how citizens of various states approach the relationship
and trade-off between government and civil society. States
with smaller governments tend to provide for perceived public
needs by giving more to charity to fill that gap. Moreover, citi-
zens tend to respond to tax increases by decreasing their chari-
table giving, while increasing their charitable giving in response
to tax reductions.
As state lawmakers work to find ways to serve their constitu-
ents, growing both economic opportunity and rates of charita-
ble giving can be done simultaneously. Allowing individuals and
businesses to keep more of what they earn to save, spend and
invest leads to higher rates of job growth, domestic migration
and total economic output.18
The data suggest that in addition
to those benefits, pro-growth tax and fiscal policy climates are
conducive to higher rates of growth in charitable giving.
As policymakers discuss tax changes going forward, the role of
charitable giving must be considered. Tax reductions will pro-
vide important social assistance to a state’s citizens through
more jobs and higher incomes. But beyond these crucial con-
siderations, there is civil society—larger in states with higher
incomes, larger in states with low taxes, growing faster in states
with high income growth and likely growing faster in states with
lower taxes. Thus, a decision to cut taxes is not only a decision
by a state’s citizens to trim government to the right size, put
more money in their citizens’ pockets, and boost their state’s
engine of economic growth, but is also a decision to rely more
heavily on civil society and provide for public needs through ef-
ficient, voluntary and collective means.
Allowing individuals and businesses to keep
more of what they earn to save, spend and
invest leads to higher rates of job growth,
domestic migration and total economic
output. The data suggest that in addition to
those benefits, pro-growth tax and fiscal
policy climates are conducive to higher rates
of growth in charitable giving.
T
22. THE STATE FACTOR
22 • AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL
[Endnotes]
1. Blanchette, Jude. “The Shortcomings of Government Charity: Private Charities Offer the Best Cure for Chronic Poverty.” The Freeman. May
1, 2007.
2. Husock, Howard. “Lesson For April 15: Why Government Can’t Replace Charity.” Forbes. April 10, 2014.
3. Ibid.
4. Easterly, William. “Planners Versus Searchers in Foreign Aid.” Asian Development Review, vol. 23, no. 1, p.1. 2006.
5. “Quickfacts About Nonprofits.” National Center for Charitable Statistics.
6. Reich, Rob and Wimer, Christopher. “Charitable Giving and the Great Recession.” The Russell Sage Foundation and the Stanford Center on
Poverty and Inequality. October, 2012.
7. “Giving USA 2015: Annual report on philanthropy for the year 2014.” The Giving Institute. 2015.
8. Ibid.
9. Greenberg, Scott. “Investment Donations and the Charitable Deduction.” Tax Foundation. June 2015.
10. Pettijohn, Sarah L. “The Nonprofit Sector In Brief: Public Charities and Volunteering 2013.” Urban Institute. 2013.
11. Brooks, Arthur. “Income Tax Policy and Charitable Giving.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Summer 2007.
12. Brooks, Arthur. “Public Subsidies and Charitable Giving: Crowding out, Crowding in, or Both?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management.
Summer 2000.
13. Payne, A. Abigail. “Does Government Funding Change Behavior? An Empirical Analysis of Crowd-Out.” Tax Policy and the Economy. 2009.
14. Wilterdink, Ben and Freeland, William. “Another Look at the Evidence on Taxes and Growth.” American Legislative Exchange Council.
Forthcoming.
15. Laffer, Arthur, Moore, Stephen and Williams, Jonathan. “Rich States, Poor States, 2015 Edition.” American Legislative Exchange Council. 2015.
16. Fruits, Eric and Pozdena, Randall. “Tax Myths Debunked.” American Legislative Exchange Council. February 2013.
17. Malm, Liz and Prante, Gerald. “Annual State-Local Tax Burden Ranking FY 2011.” Tax Foundation. April 2014.
18. Wilterdink, Ben and Freeland, William. “Another Look at the Evidence on Taxes and Growth.” American Legislative Exchange Council.
Forthcoming.
23. THE EFFECT OF STATE TAXES ON CHARITABLE GIVING
THE STATE FACTOR • 23
Acknowledgements
The authors recognize and express thanks to Dita Aisyah and Jack Hanlon, for their research contributed greatly to this project.
Special thanks are due to Todd Nesbit of The Ohio State University; Jeremy Horpedahl of the University of Central Arkansas; Patrick Rooney
of Indiana University; Matt Mitchell of the Mercatus Center; Joanne Florino of Philanthropy Roundtable; Barry Poulson of the Independence
Institute; and the many other academic and policy professionals who reviewed this research for their valuable feedback on this report.
We also thank our colleagues: Lisa B. Nelson, Kati Siconolfi, Ted Lafferty, Bill Meierling, Ashley Varner, Molly Fuhs, Shana Sally, Christine Phipps
and the staff of the American Legislative Exchange Council for their many efforts to ensure the publishing of this report in a timely manner.
Finally, we thank the numerous economists and tax policy researchers who provided important research on these matters that informed our
own analysis.
We hope these research findings serve to educate America’s state policymakers and members of the public interested in empowering civil
society to advance the best solutions to ensure that all individuals are able to pursue their dreams and thrive.
24. To learn more about how the American
Legislative Exchange Council helps develop
innovative solutions in partnership with
lawmakers and business leaders, or to become a
member, please visit www.alec.org.
American Legislative Exchange Council
2900 Crystal Drive, Suite 600
Arlington, VA 22202
Tel: 703.373.0933
Fax: 703.373.0927
www.alec.org
2900 Crystal Drive, Suite 600
Arlington, VA 22202
APUBLICATIONOFTHEAMERICANLEGISLATIVEEXCHANGECOUNCIL
STATE
FACTOR
the