Excess Money & Charity

[steveo73]

I have never given to charity, My wife is religious and goes to church and gives at church but overall it's a minuscule part of our expenses. I have no intention of giving money to charity right now because I'd rather spend that money on other stuff or not spend it at this point in time. I'm retired now and I can't see myself massively increasing my personal spending.

The crux of the matter is that I fully expect to in say 20 to 30 years time have a wad of cash to be able to give away to charity.

What are your thoughts on charities or causes to give too ? What is a good cause ? How can you determine if that money will be spend well ? Is it different giving away millions compared to small amounts ?

[bostonimproper]

We give 10% of our net income each year. I prefer giving now than waiting to acquire a pile later, personally, as I’d rather the “good” of my donation get a head start on compounding vs. cash value.

There are places and people that make it their full time job to pick good charities. If you care purely about saving number of lives, effective altruists will tell you that GiveWell is the way to go. I usually review the reports from Founder’s Pledge, since I consider them more in alignment with the things I deem important, then select charities from there.

In addition to finding “effective” charities, we also have a few local organizations that we like to throw money at as “members of the community” (think: food pantries, bail funds, public school district). Not an efficient use of money from an impact standpoint, but somewhat more warm fuzzies and direct exposure to the impact since it’s local.

[Chris]

What are your thoughts on charities or causes to give too ? ... How can you determine if that money will be spend well ?

I like charities with specific missions that have measurable results. One that fits the bill is Ideas Beyond Borders. Their mission is to get the ideas of The Enlightenment to Arabic readers, mostly through translation of existing media. Tracking if the money is spent well is rather easy, since their goal is to produce content. And their board of directors has people who I'd consider to be trustworthy.

Is it different giving away millions compared to small amounts ?

If this refers to a one-time donation vs. recurring, most charities I've read about prefer recurring. This is because, like all organizations where money flows, they need to budget annually. It's easier for them to plan with steady streams of income.

[white belt]

Here's another thread on the topic of charity: viewtopic.php?t=11086

I don't have a good answer. At the moment I don't give anything to charity, but in the future I'm sure I will encounter the first world problem of having more money than I know what to do with. I'm unsure if it is better to e.g. buy a piece of land in order to maintain it as some sort of nature preserve rather than giving a pile of cash to some large bureaucratic environmental charity. I suppose it depends on your individual philosophy and perspective.

The more I view things from a systems perspective, the more I'm hesitant to give to the large charity causes. Is there value in saving a bunch of people from malaria if I know it's likely to exacerbate famine and civil war? I don't know. I'd rather support individuals or impact something at the local level I think but YMMV.

[Humanofearth]

Honestly, ime, charity donations go to the salaries of people managing charities. Like the California homeless budget goes to the salaries of people caring for the homeless rather than to build new homes for them. So I give direct when I do. Something like building a home in a village or buying an extra large cat food bag for someone who cares for cats, medicine, or a prepaid yearly sim with infinite data is better than a college education as it gives someone the potential to learn and do nearly anything-given the discipline.

I understand the giving of it feels like too much but money is qualitatively different when one has high 6 vs 8 figures. Beyond mid 8 figs, I don’t think there’s much more but I doubt most here will get there. High 6 feels similar to low 7’s. It’s mid 7’s to 8 where the last bit of extra utility comes in.

[basuragomi]

Depending on your individual philosophy, you might want to try evaluating charities from the following axes:
1) Justice vs. charity - Is the action simply rendering aid, or is it also righting a wrong?
2) Close vs. Far - Is the action nearby (physically, temporally, or in a network)?
3) Positive-sum-negative-sum - Are you providing a direct subsidy, is the transaction quid pro quo, does value-in-use exceed the sum you've spent, are you paying to actively cause harm?

I personally prefer charities that spend a small amount of money to transfer a large amount of value. The coefficient of performance of an opportunity is IME inversely proportional to the amount of money spent.

Charities exist to aggregate demand, so you are guaranteed to never get peak efficiency compared to individual donations. However, with individual donations the risk is that you incorrectly assess an opportunity and get sub-par performance.

[Hristo Botev]

What are your thoughts on charities or causes to give too ? What is a good cause ? . . . .

From Emerson:

Thy love afar is spite at home.

I think this is right.

I've done a 180 on this over the past 20 or so years; from the Peace Corps and int'l humanitarian work and working for a non-profit in my 20s (and being one of those people, as HoE notes above, whose salary was paid for as charitable "overhead"), to making a bunch of money and feeling the need to "tithe" a big chunk of that to church and 501(c)(3)s in my 30s (motivated as much by the tax break as anything else), to where I'm at now, which is trying to get my metaphysics straight and beginning to conclude that "charity"--in the institutionalized, 501(c)(3), Susan G. Komen/United Way/Catholic Charities/Etc. sense--is some sort of evil bastardization of the theological virtue that deceptively shares the same name.

It appears that was the direction I was on a year ago in the prior discussion referenced by White Belt above (see viewtopic.php?p=241813#p241813); except that DW and I now view parish and even Diocesan donations as being less about "charity" and more about payment for sacraments (in my perfect world local parishes wouldn't really do much beyond just administer the sacraments). I'm simply no longer interested in supporting the salaries and benefits of local parish "staff" members like "faith formation" directors and their ilk; keep the lights on and the taxes paid in the sanctuary and the rectory, and the floors and bathrooms clean and the phones answered--everything else is probably worse than wasteful.

I give generously to family and friends; I tip biggly on the rare occasions that I eat out or otherwise purchase services; I generously support local groups that I or my family are involved in; and the rest goes to posterity, by which I am definitely NOT talking about posterity in any sort of "universal" or even "community" sense--I'm talking about my own kids and their kids.

[steveo73]

I just want to say thanks for all those posts. Great stuff. I'm going to digest and post back at some point.

[steveo73]

From Emerson:

Thy love afar is spite at home.

I give generously to family and friends; I tip biggly on the rare occasions that I eat out or otherwise purchase services; I generously support local groups that I or my family are involved in; and the rest goes to posterity, by which I am definitely NOT talking about posterity in any sort of "universal" or even "community" sense--I'm talking about my own kids and their kids.

I'll just comment on this. I think my kids will be given ridiculous amounts of money but I have to be careful not to screw them over.

I'm not sure about giving money to friends because most of my money will be inherited wealth and it's not from my side of the family.

My BIL and SIL lead really weird lives where money is no object. It feels to me like bad parenting. I think it screws you over. My SIL is about 40 and she is basically a socialite who has never worked. My BIL works but he is continually subsidized and it's weird.

[steveo73]

Honestly, ime, charity donations go to the salaries of people managing charities. Like the California homeless budget goes to the salaries of people caring for the homeless rather than to build new homes for them. So I give direct when I do. Something like building a home in a village or buying an extra large cat food bag for someone who cares for cats, medicine, or a prepaid yearly sim with infinite data is better than a college education as it gives someone the potential to learn and do nearly anything-given the discipline.

I understand the giving of it feels like too much but money is qualitatively different when one has high 6 vs 8 figures. Beyond mid 8 figs, I don’t think there’s much more but I doubt most here will get there. High 6 feels similar to low 7’s. It’s mid 7’s to 8 where the last bit of extra utility comes in.

I'm not sure I understand this post. I get that some people running charities earn good money.

I don't really understand the scale issue. I definitely won't be a billionaire.

[steveo73]

I'm unsure if it is better to e.g. buy a piece of land in order to maintain it as some sort of nature preserve rather than giving a pile of cash to some large bureaucratic environmental charity. I suppose it depends on your individual philosophy and perspective.

The more I view things from a systems perspective, the more I'm hesitant to give to the large charity causes. Is there value in saving a bunch of people from malaria if I know it's likely to exacerbate famine and civil war? I don't know. I'd rather support individuals or impact something at the local level I think but YMMV.

Some of the worlds problems appear too big don't they. I think that this is the issue. How do you give away money and feel that it's adding value to the world as you see it.

I'm also not sold on the local level idea. We've scrimped and saved to be wealthy. We don't live the high life. The reality is though lots of people in western societies live way beyond their means.

I suppose I'd rather help poor kids in the Sudan get water rather than a local get more Macca's on a Friday night.

One thing that appeals is having a positive environmental impact.

I also read an article recently about how billionaires are funding heaps of arts projects. We won't have anywhere near that level but I'd love to give money to push solar power for instance.

[steveo73]

Charities exist to aggregate demand, so you are guaranteed to never get peak efficiency compared to individual donations. However, with individual donations the risk is that you incorrectly assess an opportunity and get sub-par performance.

I'm worried about getting too close to for want of a better word our investment. I also don't trust myself to correctly gauge the investment. Hence why I'm seeking advice on here as well.

A fool is born every day and we are all fools at times.

[Ego]

Many of the most important things in life cannot be bought.

Charities often try to solve problems by attempting to buy those unbuyables.

[Humanofearth]

Ego expressed my thoughts more succinctly.

My other point was that excess money given to an organization rarely helps as much as giving directly.

[Hristo Botev]

I'll just comment on this. I think my kids will be given ridiculous amounts of money but I have to be careful not to screw them over.

I'm not sure about giving money to friends because most of my money will be inherited wealth and it's not from my side of the family.

My BIL and SIL lead really weird lives where money is no object. It feels to me like bad parenting. I think it screws you over. My SIL is about 40 and she is basically a socialite who has never worked. My BIL works but he is continually subsidized and it's weird.

Charity must be balanced with prudence

[Hristo Botev]

The theological virtue of charity, or love, is willing the good of the other. I think the modern sense of “charity,” as exemplified by United Way, Catholic Charities, etc., has very little if anything to do with serving and willing the good of others as it does serving ourselves to make ourselves feel better; to check the “alms giving” box by clicking some buttons on a website and parting with some money in our checking accounts that you won’t even miss. Worse, that sense of charity almost certainly does more harm than good. How can you possibly “will the good” of those supposed poor kids in Sudan who someone told you need water? You don’t know them, and you cannot therefore have any clue as to what is in their best interest (“the good” for them), and it’s sin (in the form of pride) to think you do. I, for one, am constantly struggling with trying to ascertain what is “the good” for even me and my family; it would therefore be wreckless for me to try and make that decision for people on the other side of the planet about whom I know nothing that wasn’t fed to me filtered through someone else’s agenda.

[Hristo Botev]

The Catholic principle of subsidiarity also comes into play. The decisions about obtaining water for poor kids in Sudan should be made by Sudanese unless they are simply hamstrung to do so; and I suspect your donation to some international NGO in the interest of obtaining water for poor kids in Sudan is partially to blame for hamstringing the Sudanese in being able to exercise some agency and control to make those decisions.

[Married2aSwabian]

Hmmm, I thought these types of discussions weren’t allowed here?

A wise man once said:

“ Further, consider the precedent donation drives set for future conflicts. Even if something doesn't seem controversial now or here or to you or that big of a deal "when only one person is doing it", it may still become so to others or yourself in the future or in other conflicts as more forumites start asking for money for things they mutually disagree with.

It's not hard to imagine the forum disintegrating because two factions are asking for support for opposing causes they feel very strongly about until they suddenly don't. We already saw the result of that last year and this is why politics is now banned.

As such I'd really ask people who want to support a cause to do so via their personal email lists or by putting signs up in their own front yard.”

[prudentelo]

All old foundations are now run by people with current aims, rather than aims of the founders (sometimes they're the same by accident).

Best to spend the money while you're alive under your direct supervision. It's illusion to think money keeps working for "you" (even by your proxy of choosing a manager) any time after your death.

If it's just a "safety margin" you are not comfortable giving away in your life, best not worry about it. Give it an individual you know and respect with no strings. Same thing, but you have more idea of who is getting it.

Just own opinion.

[theanimal]

Some have acknowledged the possible second and tertiary effects of providing aid (war, famine etc), which leaves me wondering if charitable spending falls under the same basis that guide the ecological principles of 1 JAFI. In that by spending more than the target amount per year, one is causing further damage to the world. Regardless of whether that annual number is spent on diesel, charity, lentils etc.

world GDP / world population / average ecological footprint = 86600B / 7.8B / 1.75 = $6344/year/person

This line of thinking would suggest that direct individual action and support through time/effort would be far more valuable than giving money to unknown people in distant lands. It would also force most to act locally as that is the easiest and most available source of giving. This could tie in to one's web of goals and be a way to further strengthen relationships within a community as well as a means to improve the community itself.