[Epaphras]

From AP (link):

For the fourth year running, New Hampshire was the most miserly state, according to the Catalogue of Philanthropy's Generosity Index. Mississippi remained at the top for generosity.

The 10 most generous states were, in descending order, Mississippi, Arkansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Utah, South Carolina and West Virginia.

The 10 stingiest, starting from the bottom, were New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Minnesota, Colorado, Hawaii and Michigan.

I find it very interesting that some of the poorest states are the most financially generous, while some of the richest are the most tightfisted. Very interesting indeed....

[The Phantom Mullet]

Miserly or Generous in what sense?

[Nate]

Originally Posted by Epaphras

I find it very interesting that some of the poorest states are the most financially generous, while some of the richest are the most tightfisted. Very interesting indeed....

My first thought was geography, not wealth. Southern pride, baby!

[adamwagg]

Originally Posted by Epaphras

I find it very interesting that some of the poorest states are the most financially generous, while some of the richest are the most tightfisted. Very interesting indeed....

It was the same thing I discovered with selling chocalates for fund raising, or door knocking for charity.

The rich big houses with nice cars would often buy or give less (not always but as a general trend).

[JerryLove]

My first thought was geography, not wealth.

Based on this statistic, there's support for that. From the article:

"New Englanders remain among the most tightfisted in the country when it comes to charitable giving while Bible Belt residents are among the most generous"

However, there is controversy as to the methodology (I'd be happy to offer my own observation if someone could point me at the actual methodology):

"If everyone in Massachusetts gave 100 times as much to charity as we do today and everything else remains the same, we wouldn't get above the bottom half of the chart," said David Trueblood, a spokesman for the foundation. "And no matter what Mississippi did, it couldn't fall below 22nd or 23rd."

The rich big houses with nice cars would often buy or give less (not always but as a general trend).

Not a trend I saw back in the days I went door-to-door for cherity. Certainly, some of the worlds richest people are known for their philanthropy (Gates gives billions).

[Nate]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

However, there is controversy as to the methodology (I'd be happy to offer my own observation if someone could point me at the actual methodology):

Yesh. I was skeptical of the methodology (and the scale) as well. Seemed arbitrary.