I'm now taking point donation so that I may run a campaign targeting Points System revisions as my goal. But in order to focus my time and energy on this noble purpose, I can not be focused on the job of playing games to make my own points. I promise I will not ever use your points to join throw-away games or anything of the sort, and I'll only use my free time garnered by points donations to advocate good things in the forums.

I want to be your points advocate, and I'm asking for your points today.

You can't ask for donations. The point-rich will never give them up willingly. You must forcible seize their points for the use of vanguard party and establish a glorious dictatorship of the point-proletariat.

Actually, the conservative rich tend to be the most charitable...sorry, charlie, just statin' the facts...

True, unless you discount giving to religious organizations, in which case Democrats give significantly more as a proportion of wealth than Republicans.

And in case you were going to ask for my source, it's the Chronicle of Philanthropy, a fundraising industry publication.

http://philanthropy.com/article/America-s-Generosity-Divide/133775/

"When religious giving isn’t counted, the geography of giving is very different. Some states in the Northeast jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted. New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4."

(Also, interestingly, it's not the Conservative rich that are the most charitable when you include religious giving, it's the Conservative middle-class.)

Religious organizations are charitable organizations, whether or not you personally agree with religion. You can't cut that out of the comparison.

"True, unless you discount giving to religious organizations, in which case Democrats give significantly more as a proportion of wealth than Republicans. "

Proof or you are full of shit. And your proof better include money given to churches.

Did you not read my citation above?

And you provided website has this right on that page...

"In states like Utah and Mississippi, the typical household gives more than 7 percent of its income to charity, while the average household in Massachusetts and three other New England states gives less than 3 percent."

Mass and the rest of New England is *blue*, not *red* so that says the exact *opposite* of your claim.

Additionally, that is divided by zip code and/or by wealth, not by political affiliation. Wealth and political affiliation are not one and the same, not even close with just as many of the Demcratic party being as rich as the Republican party.

Yes, I did. It doesn't mention party affiliation. So I say proof about your claims of party affiliation.

(I'll concede that the "significantly" might be shit.)

But why would I include money given to churches when the statement I'm defending specifically stipulates that "you discount giving to religious organizations"?

"The study, based on the most recent available Internal Revenue Service records of Americans who itemized their deductions, examines taxpayers who earned $50,000 or more in 2008. They donated a median of 4.7 percent of their discretionary income to charitable causes. Altogether, they provided $135-billion to charity, nearly two-thirds of the $214-billion donated by all individuals in 2008, according to “Giving USA,” the benchmark of giving patterns. (See how The Chronicle conducted the study.)"

Two problems here. First and foremost, it is only those who itemize deductions. Middle class America doesn't necessarily itemize. I didn't, yet I give 5% of my take home to my church off the top and make other donations. I just don't have enough to make it worth itemizing deductions for an extra hundred dollars in my refund. My time is worth more than that.

And did you read the article or just the quote? Party affiliation is addressed in the article.

And my point is discoutning giving to religious organizations is total bullshit. Do you know what my church does with the benevolence fund (2% of my 5% off the top goes straight to benevolence)? They feed and clothe the poor. Provide housing for the homeless. Get medical releif to third world countries and do everything they can for starving and sick children aroudn the world. It's called Lutheran Hunger Relief. Look it up. And it is a much mroe efficient organizatin than the United Way, not nearly as bloated, with more of my donation making it to where it needs to go and not into some bloated administrative system.

OK, top further prove you made a bogus statement.

"Red states are more generous than blue states"

Red means conservative. Blue means liberal. Sort of counter to what you just said.

Yes, until you remove churches as a source, at which point blue states give more, which was my whole point.

Quit removing churches. They are as legit and *more* effective than the United Way.

Take out that bloated "United Way" and see what you get. Better yet, take out all *poltitcal* contributions. They do nothing but line politicians pockets and contribute to the current corruption in Washington and every state capital in the US.

Look, I'll concede that what I know of religious "charities" comes from my own personal experience at an evangelical church and its evangelical children's ministries. But every bit of our money went into "sharing the good news" and the goals of that were stated fairly nakedly in membership numbers.

I can concede that some of what gets donated to churches is truly charitable, and doing good work. There's a Catholic soup kitchen in my town that touches a lot of people, Catholic or not. But my point is that if 2% of your 5% goes into the benevolent fund, that's still a lot of money going into evangelical purposes, which I'd argue can't be called truly charitable.

At any rate, it does seem clear that *some portion* of what gets donated to churches is truly charitable, and some (larger) portion is not. All I wanted to do, really was to dispute Krellin's statement that "Actually, the conservative rich tend to be the most charitable...sorry, charlie, just statin' the facts..." The facts are far less black-and-white than that statement would imply.

I worked for the United Way of Greater Portland raising funds. Do you know what percentage of their raised funds go directly into program? 97%. If 2% of your 5% goes into the benevolent fund, that doesn't begin to approach half of the United Way's efficiency.

There is already an inflation tax. Kestas and the webdiplomacy government has promised to bailout any person who falls below the 100 , and subsidize their games until they can get over the 100 point margin.

This has grossly inflated the points on this site, and as a result points are now worthless. Back in my day, having 350 made you one of the best players on this site, now 7 years later, almost 2000 players fall into this category.

I've previously recommended a gold standard for points, were we cap total points at 50,000 and every new player gets 6 (taking a 1 point tax off the 6 people who join the first game he plays) and no refunds. If you can't win your first games, then you deserve to starve.

"sdpreading the good news" is a legitimate function of the "charitable" organization like a church. Other "legitimate" NON-religious "charities" take proceeds and pay high salaries, etc and do very little good work for their implied purpose.

Bottom line - giving to a church is a financial sacrifice someone makes, unrequired by law, for what they view as a good and noble purpose. They are legit, they "count"

The other 3% goes towards church maintenance. How much of your United Way donation do you think actually gets into the hands of the needy? Less than 10 cents on the dollar. if just 1% of my 5% gets into the needies hands, I have doubled my donation as a percentage over yours.

Just examined the 2011 IRS form 990s for Lutheran World Relief and United Way of Greater Portland (the most recent year available). LWR spent $41,549,413 that year, of which $26,871,635, or 64.67% went to charitable purposes. United Way of Greater Portland spent $9,305,526, of which $6,337,697 or 68.11% went to charitable purposes. Thus, if 40% of your church donation goes to LWR, and 64.67% of that is spent charitably, then 25.87% of your donation was used charitably. I'll stick with the United Way, thanks.

It DOES NOT MATTER what the church does with the money - it is still a charitable contribution, whether YOU approve of the way the money is used or not.

I think there are some non-religious charities that do not serve ANY good purpose...but they still count.

They count for your taxes. But there's a big difference between making deductible gifts and being a charitable person.

97% goes into the program. 97% does *not* reach the people in need. When the United Way president makes over $650,000 per year and the American Red Cross president makes 7 figures... Sorry charlie, but my Pastor needing $45K to support his family and the property taxes the church has to pay (churches may not pay on income, but they do on property), the rest of our non-benevolence money then goes to a combination of spreading the word and *helping* the local community.

http://ascensionlutheranchurch.com/home.html

This is my church. You can see what some of our local works are, including free community concerts of a non-religious nature (no,w e don't have rap stars or big names, but students and local professionals trying to make their way in the world of music especially as our music director is a retired opera singer). These are 100% free. We sponsor entire families at Church throughout the year. Not just at Christmas and not just a family, but families, plural.

(The stats were for Draugnar's benefit, Krellin, not yours. I was trying to refute his claim that his 40% church contribution to LWR is not more effective than a donation to the United Way.)