How much do you give to charity?

[7Wannabe5]

I am maybe misunderstanding here, but are you suggesting that giving money is no "real" help?

No. What I am saying is that it is roughly analogous to dumping fertilizer on a field from an airplane. It's a systems problem, because charitable efforts that are closer to home or community are much more effective, but the individuals who are most affluent and functional are less likely to be on the ground in the locations where help is most needed, and those few who are find themselves becoming burnt out quite quickly. I mean, miracles could happen, if any 20 members of this forum were to show up at an inner-city school every day for a year. There are 9 year old children in detention centers in Detroit. It's just downright shameful is all I can say.

[ajcoleman22]

We only started it a couple years ago when our combined salaries reached $150K. Having already maxed out all of our retirement options with plenty leftover we thought why not?

It has only been a few thousand dollars a year but the next big raise will make it much more.

[Seppia]

It's a systems problem, because charitable efforts that are closer to home or community are much more effective

How do you define effectiveness?

but the individuals who are most affluent and functional are less likely to be on the ground in the locations where help is most needed

This may be the reason why they instead choose to "throw money at the problem"?

I mean, miracles could happen, if any 20 members of this forum were to show up at an inner-city school every day for a year.

Well that would be awesome but so would be if everybody gave 10% of their salary away every year.

I guess what I'm trying to say is while yes, I do think working with special needs kids or going to africa is an amazing experience that is much more fulfilling than writing a cheque, reality is that just sending money and getting out of the way can often save more lives.

Hell, one would probably save more lives working a minimum wage job and sending all the money to fight malaria instead of helping detroit inner city kids.

While I would never myself dare pointing that out to all the fantastic people that dedicate their lives to others, I'd just ask we don't shame those who "only send money"

[GandK]

Last I saw statistics, in the US, religious people gave at much higher percentages. That said, religious people tend to live in red states where the social safety net is smaller. I have wondered from time to time whether e.g. poverty giving is actually the same in both areas, but is handled by taxation/redistribution in some areas and charities in others.

Of the two, I greatly prefer the red model of voluntary high giving to preferred interests to the blue model of high taxes across the board and government/corporate decision making about spending. But it likely requires the social glue, pressures, nudges, etc. of something like religion. Something Fe that also touches people's conscience. If we assume that society contines on a downward trajectory with regard to religious participation, I'm not sure how to get people to give like that at a high level absent a crisis that touches them personally.

[Toska2]

Im paraphrasing here, "Becareful what you measure."

Take the American Cancer Society. They are funding ways to cure cancer*. They promote surviorship. Get cancer, take the drugs reseached by them. Nothing about home ec education, no making fitness fun or food deserts. Prevention will in fact worsen their results in absolute numbers. They only can save those who get cancer. The drugs are increasingly more expensive for less return. A 10% increase of years lived at a doubling price.

*this after relatively high wages, commercials and fund raising walks.

[Ego]

I guess I try to look at it more based on its effects in the world. If I tell others about my giving, are they more likely to give more or less in the future? On net, is being perceived as showy worth the potential impact of others' marginal contributions?

I like that metric.... the effects in the world.

But I see the effects differently.

A showy contribution is more likely to encourage charitable opportunities that provide the most conspicuous status boost - regardless of outcome - where the giver uses the impact it has on others' contributions as a way to rationalize unintended consequences.

As 7W said, for systemic problems a showy contribution is more likely to remove the impetus to change the system as a whole.

A showy contribution is more likely to create a Charity Hazard.

And the largest downside, a showy contribution creates a moral license, especially in those with the most power who can then use the license to do the most harm. Epstein, the Sacklers, Ken Lay.... all extremely charitable.

[7Wannabe5]

Hell, one would probably save more lives working a minimum wage job and sending all the money to fight malaria instead of helping detroit inner city kids.

While I would never myself dare pointing that out to all the fantastic people that dedicate their lives to others, I'd just ask we don't shame those who "only send money

Oh, I meant my "shameful" comment for American society in general, not the generous souls who contribute significant funds. It just upsets me to even think about some of my experiences. Also, although there is a certain level of "fulfillment" in such work, I currently include myself in the category of "burnt out" which is why I wish there were more people willing or wanting to take on the work. I know there are paying jobs that are not being filled, besides the vast need for anybody who might possibly wish to volunteer. I am now taking a break by teaching affluent high school kids which is much more relaxing.

I am not entirely sure, would have to run the math, on your above suggestion. The infant mortality rate in Detroit is around 13/1000. However, you are likely correct on the basis of lives saved. It just seems more shocking to me when kids are dying or otherwise suffering within bike ride distance away. I'm not exactly a bleeding liberal on this matter either. I was happy to hear that violent crimes task force was soon to be well funded. I was constantly running an actuarial analysis through my mind while walking the short distance from the bus stop to the worst school I visited.

[ertyu]

The American insistence on charitable giving is to justify billionaires' unwillingness to pay taxes. The argument for taxes is, well you need to pay them because the gvt uses them to run necessary social programs. The don't tax me counter-argument goes, well if society really valued these outcomes, they would be provided via charitable giving. Also, no one gets any brownie points for paying their taxes. But if you're a billionaire and you donate 0.00001% of your income to some cause, suddenly you're in all the papers for having ended starvation in africa

so the plebs think you're good and they shouldn't kill you in the next revolution. also, you're clearly doing a lot of philantropy, they surely shouldn't tax you, should they?

[7Wannabe5]

Something Fe that also touches people's conscience.

It was my first visit to the school. The harried secretary handed me a folder and rough directions to the trailer parked in what used to be a playground. The 28 second graders tumbled into the room as I struggled to turn on the heating unit. One girl wearing a hijab and pink tennis shoes led another who obviously had Down's Syndrome to a seat next to her. I rang the bell and assumed enough authority to get most of their attention. One boy kept running up and down the back off the room, shaking his hands and talking to himself, and another had his head down on his arms, eyes closed. When I called out "Billy? Billy Foster?" a bright looking child with a head full of colorful braids, said "Absent. He's probably at court."

After getting the group started on their first lesson, I walked over to the boy who was still sleeping. He was quite hot to the touch and his eyes were glazed as I attempted to rouse him. He said "My neck hurts." I immediately sent him to the office in the company of the bright braided child. Twenty minutes later they returned to the trailer and the bright child told me "Nobody's comin' to get him." ...

[jacob]

@GandK, Peanut, bostonimproper - I can't speak for the entirety of Europe, but here's the Nordic perspective which in terms of politics and institutional religious influence can be described as "ultramarine" and "none" respectively. Seeing as it works rather well, it might serve as an example of an alternative solution to the charity-problem/problem solved by charity.

Here, the general attitude is that redistribution in the comprehensive welfare state has obviated the need for charity. While paying via involuntary taxes, most (not all) people think that the state preventing poverty (on top of providing many other services) is preferable to the US model which is often held up as an example of what not to do($). The Gini index is low. This also means that nobody feels any need or want to "pay extra" for a problem that is already [being] solved via taxes. This does not mean that people won't contribute the equivalent of a few dollars to "curing cancer" or "ending hunger in Africa" when asked. However, there's no tradition for regular individual donations or tax deductions like in the US.

($) Unlike the US the general sentiment is that government actually works and that people get what their taxes pay for, so that's also a big difference.

Tithing(*) is seen as an archaic church tax from back when the church was responsible for many of the services that are now provided by the [welfare] state. Here too, people see no reason for paying twice over. Having an official state religion also means that churches (building maintenance, services, preacher salaries, ...) are paid via the tax-system, so you don't have to pay extra for that either.

(*) If you ask the average person on the street what tithing is, they likely have no idea. They'd only know if they paid attention in history classes. This arrangement has been forgotten since it dates back several generations past living history.

If people give more than $20 to charity (roughly translates as "purposes of improvement") it's likely to be done irregularly for something very specific. The idea is actually so strange to me that I can't think of anything (over there) on top of my head. Add: Could be something like a statue in a park.

PS: I'll also admit that despite living in the US for almost 15 years, the above values and habits remain deeply ingrained. That if something is important, the government should and would be on it already. Rationally, I know that not to be the case in the US, but values aren't determined by reason.

[OTCW]

Where do you volunteer?

Big Brothers/Big Sisters.

[bostonimproper]

@jacob Thanks for the link! His work looks cool, will check out.

@7w5 That's great that food insecurity has not been an issue where you are. I know in Massachusetts, at least, there's been a rise in food insecurity for low-income kids in poorer suburbs (particularly immigrant heavy suburbs). This has been exacerbated as our state government has cut funding for subsidized lunch programs for undocumented students. I do agree that lack of safe 3rd spaces and responsible caretakers and mentors for kids is a huge issue as well.

@Seppia @Toska2 I like GiveWell, but to Toska's point, I wish they would expand their set of metrics used to analyze a wider variety of charities. If you focus purely on immediate lives saved per $, you will never address underlying structural issues (democratic reform, access to birth control), qualitative life impacts (poverty reduction, literacy, incarceration, civil rights), nor will you address long-term risks (climate change).

@ajcoleman22 That's impressive, here's hoping you get that raise!

@GandK I personally prefer the blue model because of (1) the tragedy of the commons, (2) churches don't generally have to publish how they distribute funds the way normal charities do, which I find somewhat concerning, and (3) I don't think giving or receiving aid should necessarily have to be proximal to one's social or religious community. But I agree it's very hard to get people inspired without that spiritual element.

@Ego How much do you think small-scale contributions are likely to contribute to these sorts of effects? At least when it comes to things like Charity Hazard and undue influence, those seem more like distortionary effects of large inflows of capital rather than a middle class person giving an extra $100 to their charity of choice and posting it on FB.

I do think some charitable contributions can have a deleterious effect on promoting system-wide change, but I also think for lack of power to change the system en masse it is hard to not try and fill an obvious resource gap, at least for me.

@ertyu There's probably some truth in that. Some sort of trickle-down noblesse oblige.

@OTCW Same here, high five!

[Ego]

@Ego How much do you think small-scale contributions are likely to contribute to these sorts of effects? At least when it comes to things like Charity Hazard and undue influence, those seem more like distortionary effects of large inflows of capital rather than a middle class person giving an extra $100 to their charity of choice and posting it on FB.

Well, these are social phenomena so the number of people talking about it is more important than the amount given. A million $1 donations touches more people than one $1,000,000 donation. Never underestimate the contagiousness of social phenomena.

We all expected the internet to eliminate boundaries and allow us to communicate/empathize with people from all over the globe. And to some extent it has. But where we were once blissfully ignorant to the plight of others, they now bombard our lives in a million little feeds.

Social media, responsible for this onslaught, also provided the cognitive workaround to let ourselves off the hook. Where it was once considered gauche to advertise one's generosity, social media has made it not only acceptable but a requirement. If you give, you've got to tell others about it for no other reason than to, ahem, encourage them to do the same.

All this signaling of generosity provides the moral license to ignore the plight of others. Strange how that worked out.

Even stranger, the more we practice it, the better we get at it. And by "it" I mean intentional ignorance.

[bostonimproper]

All this signaling of generosity provides the moral license to ignore the plight of others. Strange how that worked out.

How so? I don't really see any evidence that, on average, those who signal generosity are more likely to ignore the plight of others more than those who don't. Yes, those with malicious intent may use charitable giving to mask their immorality. And people can be led astray as to the best ways to address societal ills by marketing of the charities themselves or their social group. But the idea that person A who donates $100 to a charity and posts about it is ignoring the plight of others in some fundamental way that person B who donates $100 to the same charity but doesn't post about it doesn't grok.

[Scott 2]

If I hire someone in need, they make $100 and I profit $20, is it charity? What I hire for the same work, but I lose $5?

I'm not convinced there has to be a giver and a receiver for someone's role in society to be overall beneficial.

There's also the problem of the world being a complex adaptive system. Maybe reducing malaria deaths increases competition for food, leading to civil war. Is there a net reduction in suffering?

It's not an easy problem.

Hence my opting for a combination of immediate fun and long term commitment of some of the estate. Twenty percent to animal welfare in my case. It's not optimal. I'm ok with that

I found the approach Bill Gates follows in his Netflix documentary interesting.

[Ego]

But the idea that person A who donates $100 to a charity and posts about it is ignoring the plight of others in some fundamental way that person B who donates $100 to the same charity but doesn't post about it doesn't grok.

Moral licensing revolves around how the charitable person views him or herself. That self-concept is influenced by how others see them. We are social animals and our sense of who we are is shaped at least partially by what others think of us. The conspicuous giver is seen differently than the anonymous giver who experiences no social advantage to giving. That difference influences his or her sense of self which in turn influences the moral license they believe they bought with the charitable gift.

That's not to say that they are only buying an assuaged conscience with their donation. I get that most people who donate are genuinely trying to help. In other threads we've discussed whether they actually help or not, which brings us back to your "effects in the world".

[bryan]

During my working years I set up direct deposit to do 10% to a separate brokerage account, so <10% (e.g. after 401k, taxes, HSA, premiums, etc). I kept that money siloed and invested until eventually I set up a Donor Advised Fund near the end. Occasionally I would donate to some charities from that brokerage account, but I saved >95% of those deposits until transferring the assets to the DAF fund one specific calendar year near the end of my (peak) salary years.. the same year as realizing most of my Bitcoin gains in order to minimize taxes.

To be more factual, I actually sent Bitcoins (the ones that had the most unrealized gains) directly to that DAF (they do the exchange to USD for you, ~minimal/~20min slippage, so that you don't realize any gain but can itemize the full value on your taxes), instead of the assets in that separate brokerage, because the Bitcoins had way more unrealized gains than what was in that brokerage. The brokerage ended up just serving as a mental reminder and accounting tool.

So I have a DAF, which can still be invested as I choose, that I can give to charities from, with no hard time limit. The DAF was a pretty nice tax optimization.

However, in retrospect I don't think I would do the same thing.. I would certainly set aside about that amount, but instead of 100% of that ~10% going to the DAF, I would find some better balance between (non-deductible) cash giving and the DAF. It would have been nice to have a big chunk of change to just divvy out to those in need (I've never given more than $40 to any one person in need, that I can recall..). Whether that is homeless folks, some poor person doing some hustle (from someone on the streets, to legit vendors, to a poor patreon/youtuber/etc., to industry folks that are typically surviving on tips, etc), or some gofundme or cry for help on social media, or just someone in the local community that needs it, etc.

That's not to say that ~10% is all I'll ever "give to charity", in fact I doubt it.. it's just what I have earmarked during my working years and RE planning..

One appeal of perhaps earning a salary again would be to give away more money (in some form..), not necessarily to some charity.

Not even sure if I like charitable giving being tax-deductible, honestly. Haven't really looked into the history of it, though.

[halfmoon]

Most of these responses make me kind of sad, if only because they reflect where we were in accumulation phase. We were selfish, mostly due to a habit of financial fear. It was a hard habit to break even when we became more secure. It's also interesting that most of the more generous cite religious motivation. I'm an atheist, but I have religious friends who give a lot of time and money to back up their beliefs. I respect that.

We don't have a certain percentage we give to charity, but we are somewhat guided by DH's IRA RMD. Any IRA distribution that's designated as a Qualified Charitable Distribution is not added to taxable income. This is useful if (as with most) you can no longer itemize deductions. We carefully choose our charities:

1. Small, so our donation makes a difference.
2. No large CEO salary. Preferably no salaries at all; volunteer-based is preferable but not mandatory.
3. Wildlife rescue, habitat preservation, dog rescue and services for homeless humans are our choices.
4. No hinky stuff on the 990 (annual IRS filing).

All of this can be researched by reading the forms 990, accessed through Charity Navigator or the IRS.

[Fiddle]

Over the years I've probably donated maybe 3- 5% of my income to charities, usually on a monthly direct debit. I particularly like this when they're a membership organisation that lobby government or confront unethical corporations, so the organisation can add one more to the people power side of the equation.

Last year I decided to take direct action and collected a enough women and childrens clothing and toiletries to fill a 3.5 ton van I have and delivered the supplies to a refugee centre in Europe. I met all the costs of the trip, it was amazing and I look forward to doing more things like this. I think doing meaningful charitable things creates so much value to all involved.

[EdithKeeler]

I give regularly and often to our local food bank (money) and goods to my church food pantry (usually a full grocery bag of canned meat and meals) every other week. I also give sporadically to efforts to pay for unpaid school lunch bills, etc.

That’s kind of my “thing”—food charity type stuff. I live in a community where almost 30% of the citizens are at or below the poverty level. I think it’s shameful that there are people in the United States who don’t have enough to eat.

I also donate to pet-related causes (humane society, etc) periodically.

I also donate a lot of stuff to the Salvation Army.

Beyond that, I don’t. When I die, half of my money will go to my university, the other half will probably go to the food bank.

I really don’t keep track of the dollar amounts. Should, but don’t.