Where do the SELFISH STINGY CHEAP GREEDY people live? (section 8, real estate)

[gulfporter]

The data is skewed by the fact that it only includes taxpayers who itemized their deductions, as opposed to taking the standard deduction.

Florida has many retirees, more than the national average. Most own their retirement homes/condos outright and have no mortgage interest to claim as an itemized deduction. Also, Florida is a non-income tax state, another common and large itemization for taxpayers in most other states. The 2013 federal standard deduction for a married couple is $12,200.

Taxpayers who claim the standard deduction still contribute to charity, but their contributions are not declared on the tax return and they are not included in this data.

[kyle19125]

Originally Posted by BucFan

Maybe the affluent mentioned consider their taxes already one big charitable donation....afterall, our gov't gives it away like candy with all the social entitlement programs that dominate gov't spending.

That's the tired GOP spin on things but in actuality Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP accounts for 9% of the 2014 federal budget and Food Stamps are at 2% for a grand total of 11%. Government Pensions on the other hand account for 25% of the overall budget, Health Care is another 25% (paid out at massively inflated amounts to the private sector) and Military/Defense (in peace time not counting self-initiated "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan) is at another 22%. So really spare us the Fox News diatribe which as usual isn't accurate.

Government Spending Details: Federal State Local for 2014 - Charts

[PhotoProIP]

There wouldn't be "Gov hand outs" if employers paid living wages, and offered full time jobs to people. To many move to Florida, and so employers are taking advantage of that by not paying living wages and making a mockery out of employment here.

As far as the "giving" is concerned, that's a completely misplaced! There are a lot of people here who actually need help, but those who donate, they donate for causes which they cannot verify personally. So, you don't really know where the money is going...please don't get me started on this church thing...it's so overrated its not funny.

Those who appear "non giving" in the zip codes above are paying through the nose in CDD's...I am sure what's left they use to live like buy food and all. Lots of people sacrifice their entire incomes JUST to live in a cleaner area here, because we have so many uneducated transplants who don't see fit to mow their lawns, and we all need to be policed by Greenacres Natzis! So...this is just more bullcrap!

[jsun556]

Originally Posted by vaughanwilliams

I wonder how much of the Clearwater charitable deductions went to "The Church". I'm betting enough to skew the numbers all to hell.

First thing I thought of as well.

[LandsharkJB]

Originally Posted by kyle19125

That's the tired GOP spin on things but in actuality Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP accounts for 9% of the 2014 federal budget and Food Stamps are at 2% for a grand total of 11%. Government Pensions on the other hand account for 25% of the overall budget, Health Care is another 25% (paid out at massively inflated amounts to the private sector) and Military/Defense (in peace time not counting self-initiated "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan) is at another 22%. So really spare us the Fox News diatribe which as usual isn't accurate.

LOL. Spin is acting like Healthcare 25%, Pensions 25%, and Welfare 12% aren't significant. I certaintly feel like I already pay my fair share when thats where my taxes go.

But, even if I use your foolish logic and math you called out 72% of the spend as being "non welfare" and out of our control, then that leaves us with 28%, and 11% of it goes to welfare programs. THAT IS HUGE. 11% welfare when there is only 3% transportation. Big difference. Let's not even get started on the increases in goverment programs (welfare, food stamps, disability (Hi prius!!!) that is greatly outpacing population growth.

[The Villages Guy]

Originally Posted by LandsharkJB

LOL. Spin is acting like Healthcare 25%, Pensions 25%, and Welfare 12% aren't significant. I certaintly feel like I already pay my fair share when thats where my taxes go.

But, even if I use your foolish logic and math you called out 72% of the spend as being "non welfare" and out of our control, then that leaves us with 28%, and 11% of it goes to welfare programs. THAT IS HUGE. 11% welfare when there is only 3% transportation. Big difference. Let's not even get started on the increases in goverment programs (welfare, food stamps, disability (Hi prius!!!) that is greatly outpacing population growth.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am not collecting any money from any taxpayer or government program.

[housingcrashsurvivor]

Originally Posted by BucFan

Maybe the affluent mentioned consider their taxes already one big charitable donation....afterall, our gov't gives it away like candy with all the social entitlement programs that dominate gov't spending.

Your insinuative speculation doesn't account for discrepancies in comparing affluent areas only to each other, that, for instance, Westchase residents would donate 60% less than Longboat Key residents. Or that Hyde Park residents would donate more than 50% less. Those differences are huge.

Nor, does it even necessarily account for political affiliations, as in 2012 in Westchase 54% voted (in the presidential race) blue per //www.city-data.com/city/Westchase-Florida.html while Longboat Key voted 56% red //www.city-data.com/city/Longboat-Key-Florida.html.

Originally Posted by gulfporter

The data is skewed by the fact that it only includes taxpayers who itemized their deductions, as opposed to taking the standard deduction.

Florida has many retirees, more than the national average. Most own their retirement homes/condos outright and have no mortgage interest to claim as an itemized deduction. Also, Florida is a non-income tax state, another common and large itemization for taxpayers in most other states. The 2013 federal standard deduction for a married couple is $12,200.

Taxpayers who claim the standard deduction still contribute to charity, but their contributions are not declared on the tax return and they are not included in this data.

That rationalizing neither accounts for areas like Sun City, where many retirees who likely own their homes mortgage free live yet exhibit higher than national average rates of giving, nor does it account for the fact that I only included Florida zip codes, so you can take your theory of a lack of itemization potential due to no income tax out of your equation entirely for it a common characteristic applying to everyone in the comparison, making it of no relevance to the comparative data shown.

[gulfporter]

It remains a flawed study unless you know more underlying data about the taxpayers, including their level of income. For example, it is far easier for a person to donate 5% of a six-figure income than it is for someone making the minimum wage. The amount of disposable income for these two groups is quite disparate. Persons living on the minimum wage have difficulty paying for basic needs like housing, food, transportation.

[housingcrashsurvivor]

Originally Posted by gulfporter

It remains a flawed study unless you know more underlying data about the taxpayers, including their level of income. For example, it is far easier for a person to donate 5% of a six-figure income than it is for someone making the minimum wage. The amount of disposable income for these two groups is quite disparate. Persons living on the minimum wage have difficulty paying for basic needs like housing, food, transportation.

I never identified my OP as "a study". It took merely a few minutes. But comparisons can be made because the very same criteria was used in all cases. So if one is flawed, the other would be similarly flawed, still providing a relative comparison. As to the underlying data including their level of income, that is indeed a parameter of the results as what I selected was the option "all income levels" to arrive at a median instead of being selectively selective. If you look at the link I provided for your perusal, you'll see those options. When I look at this stuff I do purposely try to take a fair take of it. What I report as finding is simply where the information falls. I don't spin the body of work. I did spin the heading but that was in obvious jest.

As to your point that someone with more disposable income ought to have more to share to help make a better world than someone with less disposable income only proves my own point, not yours, because what I found at least in Tampa Bay, is that some of the less affluent areas give more than some of the more affluent areas. Also, affluent areas here give less than affluent areas elsewhere. Thus the gist of my title in jest.

[roadtrip75]

Originally Posted by kyle19125

Food Stamps are at 2%

That's way too high. Food stamps are supposed to be for poor people who can't afford to eat. Whenever I'm around poor people, I see rampant obesity and breeding.