Why Do Many MMMers Skip Charity?

[pipercat]

I certainly think it's cool to plan to give later, when one may have more money, but I also prefer to give now.  My biggest issue with waiting until FI or just "later" for whatever reason, is that I just don't know what the future holds. Maybe there will be some sort of tragedy that requires me to use all my money.  Then I've wasted whatever chance I may have had to be generous with my money.  For the record, I certainly can't give much now. We are in major debt, and we are working very hard to pay it off. However, we can certainly make room in our budget for $20 per month or something like that.

Maybe the difference with some of us is the potential to be FI fairly soon.  If I knew for sure that I would be FI within a few years, and that NO EMERGENCY could wipe out our accounts, maybe I would be more inclined to wait and give a larger lump sum later.

[Runge]

So a major misconception keeps popping up on this thread, that to do good you have to give cash to a stablished chatity. Thats bullshit. If you are afraid they'll mismanage the funds then go and buy food for the foodbank yourself, donate time, etc. whatever rocks your boat, the point is to show compassion one way or another and help out when possible.
charity is a VERB not an establishment.

Totally agree. If you're not comfortable giving to an already established organization, then go do the work yourself. If you want to see a community brought out of poverty, then go to that community and just get to know the people. Figure out what they need, and if they don't need or want anything then go someone else.

Example, say you splurged on a sweet vacation in a Latin American country. You venture out of the resort area into where most of the locals reside and see all this poverty. You're heart is moved and you have the thought...something should be done. There's people everywhere who live in shacks that will likely blow over in the next big rain storm. What could be done? Well you could go back to your warm home and hope someone else takes care of them, maybe throw some money at it. But you find out that just throwing money at the problem doesn't solve it. So...go back down there and meet with people. Just start having a conversation with them. Get to know their community and their needs will be shown, you don't even have to ask. Once you build up relationships with people in that community, you will definitely see where every single dollar that you spend goes. It likely won't have an effect overnight, but over time and staying committed to that community, there can be some amazing change for good.

Or you can just keep all your money in your accounts for yourself. That's cool too I suppose.

[deborah]

Actually charity is a NOUN - not a VERB.

Things can go off the rails at any time. We could all die tomorrow (and it is probable that one of us will). Putting off charity until some nebulous future may mean never giving.

We are told to flex our frugality muscles. We probably should flex our charity muscles as well. It may be that we only give $2 a month at first - I am sure we can all afford $2 a month - and gradually grow bigger. But I think that giving nothing at all atrophies our charity muscles, so we will not think to give - even when we are FI.

[Rural]

I've often heard the line "I give my time instead of money." Charities need both. It is really awesome that you give your time, but don't act like that is a 1:1 replacement for cold, hard cash. The blind orphanage appreciates me stopping by, as do the kids, but they needed food more than they needed my presence. Time does not replace money, nor does money replace time.

Depends entirely on what you do with the donated time. I donate my time as a grantwriter for my favorite charity, and that has brought them more money than my annual gross salary for the last five years, and more than half of my gross for several years before that. But I don't have much more time to donate, so a different charity gets only money from me, though they have made it clear they'd much rather have me writing grants.

[Gin1984]

I've often heard the line "I give my time instead of money." Charities need both. It is really awesome that you give your time, but don't act like that is a 1:1 replacement for cold, hard cash. The blind orphanage appreciates me stopping by, as do the kids, but they needed food more than they needed my presence. Time does not replace money, nor does money replace time.

Depends entirely on what you do with the donated time. I donate my time as a grantwriter for my favorite charity, and that has brought them more money than my annual gross salary for the last five years, and more than half of my gross for several years before that. But I don't have much more time to donate, so a different charity gets only money from me, though they have made it clear they'd much rather have me writing grants.

That is a wonderful idea Rural.  How did move from grant writing in your profession to grant writing for the non-profit and do you have advise for others to follow in your footsteps?

[ClaycordJCA]

Our office "adopted" and played Santa to more than 20 low income kids this past Christmas. I gave $100 not only to help them but because of how good it made me feel. It is also why I give to our local food bank.  i give to charity because, for me, it is the right thing to do.

[kathrynd]

I know several people who have used the food bank.
Not one of them was deserving, IMO...they used it because it was easy and free.
Not one of them cut back on their 'wants'

Do I think Food Banks are a good idea?
...sometimes, but in other ways, it just creates more damage..

[ClaycordJCA]

Yes, there are people who take advantage of the Food Bank. That's on them. I give knowing that many go to the food bank because they truly need the help.

[ltt]

I don't give money to charity. Why not? Because in Holland most charities have managers which such high salaries that it feels like I'm paying them instead of the charity. Also, many charities here pay their marketeers money to find new sponsors / donators donors. So when you become a donator donor, you pay for that salary to. As long as the situation stays that way, I'm not giving a penny to charities.

But that doesn't mean I don't care about people. I have other ways to help. I give stuff away to the food bank, for instance.

I am becoming much more like this.  I have done volunteer work before and sat on a board where the majority of the money donated or raised through fundraisers was going to support the administrative/operations part and much less going to the actual participants in the program.

I find it much easier to give to people directly who I know need the money.  If someone needs help with a medical bill, then I would rather give directly to that person.

I almost think in some instances we, ourselves, have become a food bank.  Our children take canned/boxed goods to school for food drives.  Kids in the neighborhood come to collect for food drives.  I have bought gloves/hats, etc. to give to the school so that kids have something in the winter.

We give "donations" when children do fundraisers.  We contribute for all kinds of things.

We have given money to help out with a surgery in a foreign country.

And I refuse to give to people who "need" the money when they are driving a fairly new car and living in a nice house.  If you "need" the funds that bad, then you need to start selling items such as your newer car and downsize your home. 

[MrsPotts]

If someone wants to give some, most or all of their money to a charity...go for it.
Doesn't make them any better, than someone who chooses not to.

Actually that fact may make them better than someone who chooses not to.  Two people where everything else is equal I think the better person would be the one who give more money to charity.

+1.   The very essence of being a better human being.

[Goldielocks]

Why do you consider giving small amounts now to be more impactful than giving large amounts later?  I view it the opposite way.  I've always viewed a large lump sum donation as having much more impact than a periodic hundred bucks.  Like Vikb said above, charities can use your small payment to help someone today, or they can use your huge lump sum payment to help people forever.

It depends on the charity, from what I can tell...

The children's hospital foundation here is exceptionally well setup to make good use of very large endowments, through capital equipment and building expansions...but pretty much net zero on the smaller stuff, after expenses.

Smaller charities have a need for ongoing smaller funds, one of my chosen world charities optimizes my donation with 2x to 4x matching fund programs from the government, resulting in less than 3% admin fees, but they would have trouble being efficient with larger sums, and that matching may go away or be capped on single donations.

Some health R&D charities, your money doesn't mean much to the research funding, but it is all about getting the message out about issues relating  to that disease, and the more people, with more small donations, the better.  I think they want to influence political subsidies and funding through knowledge and popular support.

One big indicator of where you will put your money is where you may give time to.. For that reason it may make sense to wait until FIRE to give away the majority of your charity lifetime funds..

Anyway, a good thread conversation, for certain...

[iris lily]

I donate plenty to charity.  The people who don't may make excuses for themselves, but they are really just selfish and cold-hearted.

It is not individuals responsibility to take care of the less fortunate. It is the governments. We sign over certain rights, liberties, and money to the government in order for them to take care of society as a whole. 

My responsibility is to ensure I do not require "charity". My will will provide for charitable giving because at that point I won't need my money anymore.

I guess that makes me selfish and cold hearted.

Dear selfish and coldhearted jags,

Come sit over here by me where the bench is cold because we cold-hearted people are sitting here, chilling it.

People can call me cold-hearted, I don't care. It make no difference to me that I don't follow their notion of what I need to do with my money. Certainly, I agree that those of us with excess should support our communities.  Absolutely, I agree in theory and in practice. But I will not support human welfare institutions, I don't give money to human charities.

I really like the way my heart is frozen, it keeps me nice and comfortable during these hot summers.

[Debtless in Texas]

Im having a hard time seeing why this is even an issue. If people want to give money, they should. If they don't or can't who are you to judge? Aren't you busy enough with your own life, now you have to be concerned with the lives of others?

Here is an idea, watch your own sector - stay out of everyone else's grid square.

Let's play devil's advocate: what bout the people who have money and donate just to lower their tax burden? Is that really more beneficial than those who give time volunteering or who can't give at all?

What individuals do with their money is like what they do with their politics and religion - their own business, not yours or anyone else's.

/rant

[trailrated]

Just wanted to chime in, finished reading through this whole thread. Donating to charity (I have had one in mind) has been something I meant to do when I was "ready". I am leaps and bounds ahead of where I was two years ago, but never quite felt like I was doing well enough to donate. This thread inspired me to change that. While I know some do much more, I am testing the waters with 4% of my income going towards charity for the remainder of the year.

[Baron235]

Im having a hard time seeing why this is even an issue. If people want to give money, they should. If they don't or can't who are you to judge? Aren't you busy enough with your own life, now you have to be concerned with the lives of others?

Here is an idea, watch your own sector - stay out of everyone else's grid square.

Let's play devil's advocate: what bout the people who have money and donate just to lower their tax burden? Is that really more beneficial than those who give time volunteering or who can't give at all?

What individuals do with their money is like what they do with their politics and religion - their own business, not yours or anyone else's.

/rant

Better get off this forum and website.  It is all other people's money and business..

[Luck12]

Im having a hard time seeing why this is even an issue. If people want to give money, they should. If they don't or can't who are you to judge? Aren't you busy enough with your own life, now you have to be concerned with the lives of others?

Here is an idea, watch your own sector - stay out of everyone else's grid square.

Let's play devil's advocate: what bout the people who have money and donate just to lower their tax burden? Is that really more beneficial than those who give time volunteering or who can't give at all?

What individuals do with their money is like what they do with their politics and religion - their own business, not yours or anyone else's.

/rant

Let me guess, you don't donate.   People who don't donate time or money should at least be honest  and say it's because they are selfish, lazy, or feel scared/finincially insecure.  Don't give me that bullshit of mental gymnastics to justify your lack of giving.  LOL at the people saying that they pay enough in taxes so no need to give to charitable causes or the whole "too many charities spend too much on admin" as if there aren't ones who don't. 

People judge all the time and on all kinds of issues. 

[Zikoris]

I give plenty of money to the Canadian government in the form of taxes, which builds a strong social safety net here and provides tons of international aid elsewhere. I don't feel a burning need to give more than that, particularly when it would directly harm me in the form of delaying my retirement.

I don't care if kids get to go to camp or not (I never went to summer camps growing up and didn't care one way or another), or poor people get turkey at Thanksgiving, or someone's kid's hockey team's fundraiser, or any other charitable causes that are not related to actual problems.

I do volunteer a fair bit of time to helping run the housing co-operative I live in by serving on the board or directors and helping with a lot of day to day tasks. That's enough for me for now. I intend to do bigger volunteer projects after retirement when I have more time.

[Goldielocks]

I give plenty of money to the Canadian government in the form of taxes, which builds a strong social safety net here and provides tons of international aid elsewhere. I don't feel a burning need to give more than that, particularly when it would directly harm me in the form of delaying my retirement.

I don't care if kids get to go to camp or not (I never went to summer camps growing up and didn't care one way or another), or poor people get turkey at Thanksgiving, or someone's kid's hockey team's fundraiser, or any other charitable causes that are not related to actual problems.

I do volunteer a fair bit of time to helping run the housing co-operative I live in by serving on the board or directors and helping with a lot of day to day tasks. That's enough for me for now. I intend to do bigger volunteer projects after retirement when I have more time.

But, hey, if you want to give to my son's NZ exchange trip with cadets, just let me know.

😁 :p

[ChrisLansing]

Very interesting thread.   

I guess I'm to be labelled selfish and cold-hearted.

Let's start with time.  I don't give my time.  I'm not a joiner.   I'm getting old, and I've spent much of my life working two jobs (foolishly and regrettably) and I'm simply not giving one minute to anything or anyone but my immediate family.   Asking for my time is like asking for my first born; not going to happen.    I'm more likely to give the pants I'm wearing  than my time.    That's probably selfish.   I don't care.   My time-capital is running out and I can't replenish it.   Don't ask for it. 

Now money.    I don't give because, like a few others here, I think it's govt.'s responsibility to care for the indigent.      I pay my taxes w/o complaint, and I'm in favor of having my taxes raised if that's what it takes to care for the unfortunates here in the US.      Dolling out dollars might give some people a benevolent God-like feeling but to me it's just an indication that we are failing as a society.    If there's a need, lets' address it as a society and not depend on the Blanche DuBois method ("I have always depended on the kindness of strangers")

Now a question for the morally superior crowd - are you doing enough?    Only giving 10% ?     Why not 20% ?   Why not 35% ?     If you aren't giving more than half your income away aren't you, by definition, being selfish?   After all you're keeping most of your money for yourself.   

[resy]

Very interesting thread.   

I guess I'm to be labelled selfish and cold-hearted.

Let's start with time.  I don't give my time.  I'm not a joiner.   I'm getting old, and I've spent much of my life working two jobs (foolishly and regrettably) and I'm simply not giving one minute to anything or anyone but my immediate family.   Asking for my time is like asking for my first born; not going to happen.    I'm more likely to give the pants I'm wearing  than my time.    That's probably selfish.   I don't care.   My time-capital is running out and I can't replenish it.   Don't ask for it. 

Now money.    I don't give because, like a few others here, I think it's govt.'s responsibility to care for the indigent.      I pay my taxes w/o complaint, and I'm in favor of having my taxes raised if that's what it takes to care for the unfortunates here in the US.      Dolling out dollars might give some people a benevolent God-like feeling but to me it's just an indication that we are failing as a society.    If there's a need, lets' address it as a society and not depend on the Blanche DuBois method ("I have always depended on the kindness of strangers")

Now a question for the morally superior crowd - are you doing enough?    Only giving 10% ?     Why not 20% ?   Why not 35% ?     If you aren't giving more than half your income away aren't you, by definition, being selfish?   After all you're keeping most of your money for yourself.

this is how we should be honest with ourselves and not 1000 excuses.

[NICE!]

Now a question for the morally superior crowd - are you doing enough?    Only giving 10% ?     Why not 20% ?   Why not 35% ?     If you aren't giving more than half your income away aren't you, by definition, being selfish?   After all you're keeping most of your money for yourself.

Great questions - thank you for the honesty. I do not think I'm doing enough and I don't know what value is right. I do know that I am not morally obligated to make myself dirt poor to serve others, like a Mother Teresa, but I have great respect for those who do. What do you think?

I can understand your position and right oodles about it. But we cannot control the outcome. We can only do are part.
And while I do not mean to get all spiritual, as Mother Teresa believes:

People are often unreasonable, irrational, and self-centered.  Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives.  Be kind anyway.
If you are successful, you will win some unfaithful friends and some genuine enemies.  Succeed anyway.
If you are honest and sincere people may deceive you.  Be honest and sincere anyway.
What you spend years creating, others could destroy overnight.  Create anyway.
If you find serenity and happiness, some may be jealous.  Be happy anyway.
The good you do today, will often be forgotten.  Do good anyway.
Give the best you have, and it will never be enough.  Give your best anyway.
In the final analysis, it is between you and God.  It was never between you and them anyway.

Great quote. Thanks for your contribution to this thread and to charity - you sound like a very compassionate person. I need to be more like you.

[lostamonkey]

I give plenty of money to the Canadian government in the form of taxes, which builds a strong social safety net here and provides tons of international aid elsewhere. I don't feel a burning need to give more than that, particularly when it would directly harm me in the form of delaying my retirement.

I don't care if kids get to go to camp or not (I never went to summer camps growing up and didn't care one way or another), or poor people get turkey at Thanksgiving, or someone's kid's hockey team's fundraiser, or any other charitable causes that are not related to actual problems.

I agree with this with a few exceptions:
-I'll give blood which we don't get paid for in Canada
-I'll volunteer if I feel that I will get some sort of social benefit out of it
-I'll give friends and family members a few bucks if they are fundraising
-I'll occasionally pay when I'm out with friends who are worse off financially than me.

[NICE!]

If both are needed why do YOU value money over time? I donate my time to a charity that highly values both the time and money donated. They would not be able to function without the vast numbers of people donating their time. Some people donate time, others donate money. If both are needed, why slam the people donating time?

I don't. Both are important. I was pointing out the need that I saw in the place I give my time. I didn't slam anyone, I merely questioned the logic as I think many use it to justify not doing one or the other.

Additionally, I will say that in my previous location the soup kitchen/homeless services center valued my money far more than my time. They had a glut of volunteers and even had plenty of paid staff. They also received grocery donations from a large chain. What they needed was money to fund their job training functions, addiction counseling, and housing programs. If you happened to have expertise in any area that was applicable (say, woodwork or psychiatry), your time was absolutely the most valuable resource you could donate to them.

Thank you for posing this.

I must admit that I've been a MMM who uses both the "I donate time" excuse as well as the "I'll donate money after I'm FI" excuse.   I did recently spend time looking into the most cost-efficient charities (ie., those that save the most lives per dollar), but have just been sitting on the information.    Reading this thread has prompted me to setup an automatic deduction every month to donate to one of these.   

Really, I just cannot justify being in my position and not spending $10 a month, or $50 dollars a month (or whatever other small amount) to literally save lives.

If anyone else is curious, this is my list of effecient and effective charities that I'll be picking from: http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities

Emily - thank you! As long as a few people have seriously thought about this issue, the thread was a win. You going out and giving some money makes it a huge success in my book. The same goes to the others who have seriously thought about the issue.

[NICE!]

I rarely give money to charity for several reasons. The first is that I live in a high tax country with a very comfortable welfare system. Regarding global charity the available data does simply not support the assumption that more charity equals less suffering. Countries that received a lot have not developed better than their peers that received less. Apparently there are several reasons for this among of which are local corruption, the fact that foreign aid relieves the local administration from its most basic obligations, foreign NGOs attracting 90% of highly educated locals who otherwise maybe could have founded viable businesses etc.  Meaning to do good is easy. Actually doing good much less so. The biggest charity that does systematically analyse the effectiveness of its programms only takes money from billionaires. The single most important step in reducing suffering would be the reduction of birth rates. I have searched for a charity specifically sponsoring small families in contries with high birth rates and have found none. Any links would be appreciated.

The evidence of anecdote is not data, but in my experience the 'holier than thou' crowd quite often can't be bothered to do the most simple acts of kindness in daily life.

You mention data as if you know it well, when you clearly don't.

Birth rates have dropped, with a lot of the thanks going to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation through their programs.

HIV/AIDS rates have dropped in Africa, due in large part to PEPFAR and corresponding NGO efforts.

Malaria is nowhere near the scourge it once was, due to a combination of governmental and non-governmental help.

Is charity perfect? Heck. No. But unless you have the skill and resources to overthrow a bad dictator to create a functioning society that serves its people, you can't do any better.

Also, it sounds like you've already given/give. With whom are you arguing? Just continue giving and increase it if you can.

I do my own thing, support who I want to support, volunteer the time, etc. I don't think MMM exists to answer the specific question of charitable donations, and the lifestyle certainly allows for those priorities to exist. Just like MMM has a larger house than needed given their family size, we each have places we spend that other MMMers don't.


I think instead of asking "why do MMMers skip charity", ask a specific question about charity, discuss how much you are donating, and in general just look for a meaningful specific discussion that would be helpful instead of challenging the whole lifestyle to have a stand on the issue. A meaningful discussion is great, but I think this is too broad a question to generate meaningful discussion.

Well then you didn't read the thread - it has been very good so far. You must have a weird standard for "meaningful discussion." No less than 3 people have reconsidered their previous positions on the matter. Many people have learned about others' psychology. Some people have found new charities and apps. What in the world are you looking for, man?

[mxt0133]

@NICE!  I'll definitely be another one that will re-evaluate my families attitude about charitable giving. 

We have done it sporadically but only when it is convenient.  Last Christmas we visited an assisted living facility for some Christmas caroling and it made us feel good, although a few residents probably would have paid us to just leave.  =(

I will admit that I am so caught up in trying to reach FI that my frugality is starting to border cheapness.  In the country I was born there is basically no social safety net, there are charities but they are very limited.  If someone gets sick or has a financial emergency there is a "text brigade" where you ask everyone one you know for help, and they ask everyone they know, so on and so forth.  So your social network is your safety net with the implicit understanding that you would do the same if you were in a position to help.  The thing is if you know only other poor people then you're SOL.

Growing up in the US, I learned that being unable to fend for yourself carries a social stigma.  Because we do have welfare and social services, I constantly only hear stories about people that abuse the system.  The example of a teenage parent with multiple kids from different fathers is what is portrayed as a welfare queen.  That is why I used to view charity as enabling people to be dependent on society.  If there was no charity then they would be forced to fend for themselves, make smarter choices, and get creative, I naively thought.

Only when I started volunteering more did i realize that most people do not want to be dependent on charity and that people take pride when they no longer need it.  Yet I never changed my attitude about monetary contributions.  I still however have this thought in the back of my head that they should have made better choices in life, knowing full well that they most likely just crapped out in the birth and life lottery.

A lot of introspection is needed to reconcile these conflicting attitudes.

[NICE!]

Im having a hard time seeing why this is even an issue. If people want to give money, they should. If they don't or can't who are you to judge? Aren't you busy enough with your own life, now you have to be concerned with the lives of others?

Here is an idea, watch your own sector - stay out of everyone else's grid square.

Let's play devil's advocate: what bout the people who have money and donate just to lower their tax burden? Is that really more beneficial than those who give time volunteering or who can't give at all?

What individuals do with their money is like what they do with their politics and religion - their own business, not yours or anyone else's.

/rant

Wrong. When people are literally dying of malaria or starvation, it is absolutely my place to start asking questions. When the seas and air are polluted and not enough is being done to clean them up, it is absolutely my place to start asking questions. When governments oppress people, it is absolutely my place to start asking questions. It is everyone's place.

It isn't my business to not make it my business.

Also, this is a damn ideas forum. That's what we do here. We poke holes in other people's budgets. We lament consumerism and waste. Somehow charity is a no-no because you classify it under the dreaded "politics and religion" category? YGBSM.

@NICE!  I'll definitely be another one that will re-evaluate my families attitude about charitable giving. 

We have done it sporadically but only when it is convenient.  Last Christmas we visited an assisted living facility for some Christmas caroling and it made us feel good, although a few residents probably would have paid us to just leave.  =(

I will admit that I am so caught up in trying to reach FI that my frugality is starting to border cheapness.  In the country I was born there is basically no social safety net, there are charities but they are very limited.  If someone gets sick or has a financial emergency there is a "text brigade" where you ask everyone one you know for help, and they ask everyone they know, so on and so forth.  So your social network is your safety net with the implicit understanding that you would do the same if you were in a position to help.  The thing is if you know only other poor people then you're SOL.

Growing up in the US, I learned that being unable to fend for yourself carries a social stigma.  Because we do have welfare and social services, I constantly only hear stories about people that abuse the system.  The example of a teenage parent with multiple kids from different fathers is what is portrayed as a welfare queen.  That is why I used to view charity as enabling people to be dependent on society.  If there was no charity then they would be forced to fend for themselves, make smarter choices, and get creative, I naively thought.

Only when I started volunteering more did i realize that most people do not want to be dependent on charity and that people take pride when they no longer need it.  Yet I never changed my attitude about monetary contributions.  I still however have this thought in the back of my head that they should have made better choices in life, knowing full well that they most likely just crapped out in the birth and life lottery.

A lot of introspection is needed to reconcile these conflicting attitudes.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. I will note that like you saw with your own eyes, the "welfare queen" stories are massively overadvertised. I haven't quite figured out why, but people love to latch onto those. I personally think people focus on those stories to justify not helping since helping often takes effort and sacrifice, even if that means $10/month.


SIDE NOTE: big ups to everyone for all your responses. I violently disagree with some of you, but I wanted to hear from you to understand where you're coming from and hopefully change a few minds. I think the thread has been a success on both fronts.

[Lyssa]

I rarely give money to charity for several reasons. The first is that I live in a high tax country with a very comfortable welfare system. Regarding global charity the available data does simply not support the assumption that more charity equals less suffering. Countries that received a lot have not developed better than their peers that received less. Apparently there are several reasons for this among of which are local corruption, the fact that foreign aid relieves the local administration from its most basic obligations, foreign NGOs attracting 90% of highly educated locals who otherwise maybe could have founded viable businesses etc.  Meaning to do good is easy. Actually doing good much less so. The biggest charity that does systematically analyse the effectiveness of its programms only takes money from billionaires. The single most important step in reducing suffering would be the reduction of birth rates. I have searched for a charity specifically sponsoring small families in contries with high birth rates and have found none. Any links would be appreciated.

The evidence of anecdote is not data, but in my experience the 'holier than thou' crowd quite often can't be bothered to do the most simple acts of kindness in daily life.

You mention data as if you know it well, when you clearly don't.

Birth rates have dropped, with a lot of the thanks going to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation through their programs.

HIV/AIDS rates have dropped in Africa, due in large part to PEPFAR and corresponding NGO efforts.

Malaria is nowhere near the scourge it once was, due to a combination of governmental and non-governmental help.

Is charity perfect? Heck. No. But unless you have the skill and resources to overthrow a bad dictator to create a functioning society that serves its people, you can't do any better.

Also, it sounds like you've already given/give. With whom are you arguing? Just continue giving and increase it if you can.

I'm arguing with anybody who thinks that the matter is as simple as 'more is always better'. It's not. The reduction of birth rates happened mostly in areas that received little help. Why reduce family sizes when more kids leads to more help? Just compare Egypt and Gaza. Egyptian couples currently have 3-4 children, their counterparts in Gaza 7-9, thanks to UNRWA. Has aid achieved anything in Haiti? Vaccinations work, no doubt about it. Thats why I like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Should I ever achieve billionaire status I'll absolutely include them in my will...

Most other charities are a lot less concerned about systemetically evaluating their sucess or lack thereof. Nearly all do not dare to mention the paramount importance of small family sizes because local dictators and priests/imams like women perpetually pregnant and subdued Sending aid to hellholes like Pakistan is just perpetuating and prolonging the underlying problem. I won't even send money to Doctors Without Borders if the string attached is that the family patriarch decides who does get help and who doesn't. Some systems are so rotten that their failures should not be mitigated by outsiders at the risk of keeping them going longer than they otherwise would or could.

Oh, and the little hint about me not knowing my numbers? Please provide me with a proper study showing that countries that received more have developed better than others. Or the link of the charity that would allow me to specifically support small families in Africa. The government of Rwanda might go in that direction but afaik there is no specific programm yet. Thinking of it, please look up the numbers on the correlation of population density in different districts and the number of people killed during the genozide in Rwanda. And then think again if the combination of local policies and cultures with aid that led to an x-fold increase in population sizes can be called a sucess and should be continued for the sake of a warm and charitable feeling in the chest of donors and activists.

[Rural]

I've often heard the line "I give my time instead of money." Charities need both. It is really awesome that you give your time, but don't act like that is a 1:1 replacement for cold, hard cash. The blind orphanage appreciates me stopping by, as do the kids, but they needed food more than they needed my presence. Time does not replace money, nor does money replace time.

Depends entirely on what you do with the donated time. I donate my time as a grantwriter for my favorite charity, and that has brought them more money than my annual gross salary for the last five years, and more than half of my gross for several years before that. But I don't have much more time to donate, so a different charity gets only money from me, though they have made it clear they'd much rather have me writing grants.

That is a wonderful idea Rural.  How did move from grant writing in your profession to grant writing for the non-profit and do you have advise for others to follow in your footsteps?

Actually, I'd only written a couple of work-related proposals when I started working for this charity, so my grantwriting abilities really benefited in general, and the work for the charity helped me in my career as a result.


I'd suggest starting small, frankly. A local charity trying to do good work can be transformed by a couple of small grants, and success builds success. If you do go with a small group, look for local foundations - that will get your feet wet with that type of grant writing and give you other support to list as you start shooting for bigger grants. Be careful if you don't have much time, though - I ended up chairing the board for five years, and only got to step down because I insisted!

[gaja]

However, billions have been spent over decades of time 'helping' the poor in Africa, for instance, and yet I don't really see and evidence that that aid has helped make any lasting changes for the better.

I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but statistically there have been incredible changes for the better for many African (and other) countries, some of which no longer require aid. It is a controversial topic though, whether aid helps or hinders. I'm no expert, but I took a course where we had to learn a lot about both sides of the equation. I found it fascinating and learned a lot about what types of aid help (ie: not throwing money at a problem, but involving the locals and asking them what they need) and what the downsides are.

The bold part is why I think this obsession with reducing administrative costs have done a lot of harm to the world of charity. A small one man show driving a truck full of old clothes to an orphanage in eastern Europe likely has very low administrative costs, but he just as likely does more harm than good for the local economy. Who will want to buy clothes if you can get them for free? A large organization that goes into the community, starts organizing workshops, training foster families and gives them money to spend locally, will have much larger administrative costs, but they will have kickstarted the economy in the neighbourhood in a completely different way.

Even when you go into a emergency, like a tsunami or war zone, the charity work should be done with the long term goal in mind. Doctors without borders does this very well. They do an amazing job saving lives, but an even more amazing job getting the international focus where it should be, building local infrastructure, and training local medical personell.

[LouLou]

This has been a very interesting read! I have often wondered the same thing when reading case studies.

Established charities are not the only way to give. Most of my charitable giving goes to an orphanage in a third world country. Not through an organization - we just happen to know several refugee families in our American city and the connections grew organically over time. The good side is that there is no worry about administrative waste or supporting corrupt governments. We buy a septic tank and they install it. Done. We get an amount for a medical procedure for a baby, we pay the bill. Done. No admin fees except the cost of sending money. Plus, we know and care about the director and the kids. We plan to incorporate a non-profit for tax reasons, but the process will remain the same.

I couldn't image saying, "Yes, I know you are trapped inside for months and prices of food have skyrocketed because of the Ebola outbreak, but I could retire earlier if I kept this all to myself so tough luck!"

I also consider taking care of family to be charitable, as well as donating time. Time, money, knowledge, and skills are all necessary!

And I'm not going to judge someone for avoiding small donations during their life to give a large donation later. Small and large donations accomplish different, but important, goals. My only comment on that is set up a will or trust NOW, and update over time. Tomorrow isn't promised and whatever money you have now could go to some fourth cousin you've never met through probate if you don't make your intentions clear legally (in the US).

I also don't judge someone for giving to charity by having a lower paid career in the public interest. I have law school classmates that make $70,000 less than me a year, doing some real good. They could make much more. And all the donations in the world don't solve the problem - someone has to actually do the work. Their careers are a donation!

I don't like relying on government for charitable purposes, because the values of the people in charge may not match mine. Take the discussion on administrative costs in charities that's been discussed on this board. Your view on that issue will determine how you give, and it may conflict with whatever the views of the controlling party happens to be in your country. Plus, just because the government is doing it doesn't mean it's doing it well! And there are limits on what governments can accomplish.

[ChrisLansing]

Now a question for the morally superior crowd - are you doing enough?    Only giving 10% ?     Why not 20% ?   Why not 35% ?     If you aren't giving more than half your income away aren't you, by definition, being selfish?   After all you're keeping most of your money for yourself.

Great questions - thank you for the honesty. I do not think I'm doing enough and I don't know what value is right. I do know that I am not morally obligated to make myself dirt poor to serve others, like a Mother Teresa, but I have great respect for those who do. What do you think?

I can understand your position and right oodles about it. But we cannot control the outcome. We can only do are part.
And while I do not mean to get all spiritual, as Mother Teresa believes:

People are often unreasonable, irrational, and self-centered.  Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind, people may accuse you of selfish, ulterior motives.  Be kind anyway.
If you are successful, you will win some unfaithful friends and some genuine enemies.  Succeed anyway.
If you are honest and sincere people may deceive you.  Be honest and sincere anyway.
What you spend years creating, others could destroy overnight.  Create anyway.
If you find serenity and happiness, some may be jealous.  Be happy anyway.
The good you do today, will often be forgotten.  Do good anyway.
Give the best you have, and it will never be enough.  Give your best anyway.
In the final analysis, it is between you and God.  It was never between you and them anyway.

Great quote. Thanks for your contribution to this thread and to charity - you sound like a very compassionate person. I need to be more like you.

I admire Mother Teressa and others who take a vow of poverty, but I'm not following in their footsteps.  You aren't either, apparently, nor do you believe you are morally obligated to do so.  (MT is morally obligated to do so)    Essentially then, aren't you saying it's up to each individual to decide?    I've decided.  My taxes are my contribution to charity (and I'm genuinely happy for a portion of my taxes to be used for welfare programs, I think it's one of the best uses of my taxes).   In other words "I gave at the office".   

Two stray thoughts to further the discussion.   

One, I'm wondering how much religion plays a role in people's decision to give to charity.    I don't know the answer, just guessing that atheists like myself are more inclined to believe govt. should take care of people and less inclined to think private charity is the answer.   

Two, I have a friend who lives in a small town and is a member of the volunteer fire department.   In my estimation he is giving far more generously than someone volunteering at a soup kitchen, or someone giving up their loose change.   Every time the fire dept. goes on a run there is a potential for firefighters to be injured or even die.   They  take the risk to protect other people's lives and property.    He isn't seen to be giving to "charity" in any conventional sense.   

As I'm thinking about my friend in the VFD I realize I'd jump at the chance.    Alas I live in a big city with a professional dept. and no place for volunteers.   

Maybe after retirement I could do some work with the Red Cross.   As stingy as I am with my time this type of "giving" appeals to me whereas throwing some bills into the kettle leaves me cold.     

[MrsPete]

Looking at the original question, Why do many people on this board skip charity?, the answer is that a lot of people on this board simply aren't very nice people.  They're me-first types who don't care what happens to the rest of the world and have rationalized the idea of giving the bare minimum back to the world. 

Sure, you can throw out the excuses, but in the end, helping others is something decent people do.  The Bible says that to those to whom much is given, much is expected (and if you've been born with a healthy body, a good brain, and in a position to make something of yourself -- yeah, you're one to whom much has been given).  If you don't believe in the Bible, Spiderman's uncle told him essentially the same thing.  And secular humanists strongly believe in "giving back". 

As for "helping with my tax dollars", wasn't that Ebenezer Scrooge's thought process?  I believe he complained that his taxes kept the poor house going, and nothing more was required of him.  Sure, he's a fictional character, but is that the person you want to copy?

Personally, I don't want to help all the groups that've been mentioned here -- but I can find plenty of groups in which I do believe.  Some of them are wasteful thieves -- yeah, that's true, but that's why it's important to give carefully.  To check into how your money is managed.

Time vs. money?  Organizations of all types need both, and it doesn't matter if you're consistant over the years -- it just matters that you do SOMETHING to make the world a better place. 

[caliq]

One, I'm wondering how much religion plays a role in people's decision to give to charity.    I don't know the answer, just guessing that atheists like myself are more inclined to believe govt. should take care of people and less inclined to think private charity is the answer.   

I'm an atheist and always have been. 

In my experience, the government is generally terrible at helping people in a timely fashion. 

Charity, in my mind, fills the gap for many people who are in desperate situations and need a couple months of support before the government support kicks in.  Not to mention the huge number of worthy causes that aren't significantly supported by the government, such as the various global charities listed in this thread or animal rescue.

[ChrisLansing]

Looking at the original question, Why do many people on this board skip charity?, the answer is that a lot of people on this board simply aren't very nice people.  They're me-first types who don't care what happens to the rest of the world and have rationalized the idea of giving the bare minimum back to the world. 

Sure, you can throw out the excuses, but in the end, helping others is something decent people do.  The Bible says that to those to whom much is given, much is expected (and if you've been born with a healthy body, a good brain, and in a position to make something of yourself -- yeah, you're one to whom much has been given).  If you don't believe in the Bible, Spiderman's uncle told him essentially the same thing.  And secular humanists strongly believe in "giving back". 

As for "helping with my tax dollars", wasn't that Ebenezer Scrooge's thought process?  I believe he complained that his taxes kept the poor house going, and nothing more was required of him.  Sure, he's a fictional character, but is that the person you want to copy?

Personally, I don't want to help all the groups that've been mentioned here -- but I can find plenty of groups in which I do believe.  Some of them are wasteful thieves -- yeah, that's true, but that's why it's important to give carefully.  To check into how your money is managed.

Time vs. money?  Organizations of all types need both, and it doesn't matter if you're consistant over the years -- it just matters that you do SOMETHING to make the world a better place.

Yes, Scrooge is who I want to copy, though there is a difference between me and Scrooge (Scrooge is a much better person than I am :-)   

Scrooge would probably have been upset if his taxes were raised to make poor houses nicer, or to build more of them.     Or if the amount given to the indigent were raised significantly enough for them to be lifted from poverty.     OTOH, I'm happy to have my taxes raised if it goes to anti-poverty programs.     I'd be happy to pay higher taxes if welfare programs were more generous.   

But I guess the current system has it's advantages - private charity let's someone who is very well off donate a few bucks (a pittance in relative terms) and feel morally superior to others.    I guess it meets a psychological need.   

I'm starting to wonder if going into poor neighborhoods and teaching a simplified version of MMM financial skills wouldn't be more beneficial to the poor than the loose change being given.   

[Runge]

I'm starting to wonder if going into poor neighborhoods and teaching a simplified version of MMM financial skills wouldn't be more beneficial to the poor than the loose change being given.

This is an excellent idea. As the old saying goes, "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." There are plenty of organizations out there that do this type of thing. Teaching basic and simple life skills that are commutable to many different kinds of jobs. I'm not sure about the finance aspect of it, but if there isn't one in your area, then you're in a prime position to start one up!

[Runge]

I don't give to charity because I don't care about random strangers. And I think people who do it are terrible human beings. They love to feel good about themselves, and don't care about the negative consequences of their actions.

I don't see how sharing one's wealth with someone else makes that person a terrible human being. Yes, there are probably many people out there who give for personal gain, but there are also countless others who give because they actually care about the people they're giving to. It's not all about the person giving, it's about meeting a need that someone can't meet on their own. People helping people. It's humane.

[Lyssa]

I'm starting to wonder if going into poor neighborhoods and teaching a simplified version of MMM financial skills wouldn't be more beneficial to the poor than the loose change being given.

This is an excellent idea. As the old saying goes, "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." There are plenty of organizations out there that do this type of thing. Teaching basic and simple life skills that are commutable to many different kinds of jobs. I'm not sure about the finance aspect of it, but if there isn't one in your area, then you're in a prime position to start one up!

I never heard of an NGO that does that sort of thing exept for free counseling for people drowning in debt. What I try to do is to plant small seeds in the mind of children surronding me, especially the ones from lower income backgrounds. I try my best to get them in touch with knowledge, art and different skills in a fun way. I also openly talk about money with them. The difference between having a high income and being rich for example. Or the proper attitude toward debt. Or a healthy distrust of financial and insurance 'advisors'. It's nice to see those seeds grow over the years. One thing that I certainly am going to do after ER is taking part in mentoring programms for kids from underpriviledged backgrounds.

[caliq]

I don't see how sharing one's wealth with someone else makes that person a terrible human being.

And I don't understand how not giving to charity makes one a terrible human being.

Personally, I think charity-givers are selfish and greedy.

Stop trolling; you have two posts on this fake account and your name is basically 'throwaway.'   And everyone else, stop answering :/

[Goldielocks]

However, billions have been spent over decades of time 'helping' the poor in Africa, for instance, and yet I don't really see and evidence that that aid has helped make any lasting changes for the better.

I don't disagree with the rest of your post, but statistically there have been incredible changes for the better for many African (and other) countries, some of which no longer require aid. It is a controversial topic though, whether aid helps or hinders. I'm no expert, but I took a course where we had to learn a lot about both sides of the equation. I found it fascinating and learned a lot about what types of aid help (ie: not throwing money at a problem, but involving the locals and asking them what they need) and what the downsides are.

The bold part is why I think this obsession with reducing administrative costs have done a lot of harm to the world of charity. A small one man show driving a truck full of old clothes to an orphanage in eastern Europe likely has very low administrative costs, but he just as likely does more harm than good for the local economy. Who will want to buy clothes if you can get them for free? A large organization that goes into the community, starts organizing workshops, training foster families and gives them money to spend locally, will have much larger administrative costs, but they will have kickstarted the economy in the neighbourhood in a completely different way.

Even when you go into a emergency, like a tsunami or war zone, the charity work should be done with the long term goal in mind. Doctors without borders does this very well. They do an amazing job saving lives, but an even more amazing job getting the international focus where it should be, building local infrastructure, and training local medical personell.

I believe a large portion of "on the ground" administration costs- such as those incurred within the target region, are actually tallied as program costs, not administration.   Administration costs are the HQ, accounting, advertising, etc.

I am sure some large organizations may have admin cost in the target areas, but that is what I learned when I tried to figure out why some charities qare so low.

[Lyssa]

I don't see how sharing one's wealth with someone else makes that person a terrible human being. Yes, there are probably many people out there who give for personal gain, but there are also countless others who give because they actually care about the people they're giving to. It's not all about the person giving, it's about meeting a need that someone can't meet on their own. People helping people. It's humane.

I guess the main issue is if the help is really helping or just the modern equivalent of medieval selling of indulgences.

'How can you live without giving back?', 'Well, seems you are doing a lot of rationalizing of your cold-hearted selfish choices...'.

The reality is that it is unbelievably difficult to change things for the better under circumstance like there are in most developing countries. And don't get me started on things like young western adults touring the world for six months on the ticket of some NGO, making no difference at all exept for a lot of photos of cute African/South American children uploaded to their facebook account.

Unfortunately, the US trend of 'CV philantropy' is just getting imported to Europe. I review more and more applications for internships and associate positions making a really big thing about pointing out all the good causes the candidate is involved in or linking to the micro NGO founded by the candidate and his or her pals. Are law school students suddenly a lot nicer than they've been five or ten years ago? Somehow I doubt it. It's just something that one does. Like wearing matching shoes and belt. Oh, and the working class kid who clawed his way upwards against all odds and has even read up what shoes to wear? Well, bad for him if he couldn't find the time to be a better person... This kind of help manages to hinder development and progress in both worlds.

[Metta]

I'm starting to wonder if going into poor neighborhoods and teaching a simplified version of MMM financial skills wouldn't be more beneficial to the poor than the loose change being given.

This is an excellent idea. As the old saying goes, "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." There are plenty of organizations out there that do this type of thing. Teaching basic and simple life skills that are commutable to many different kinds of jobs. I'm not sure about the finance aspect of it, but if there isn't one in your area, then you're in a prime position to start one up!

I never heard of an NGO that does that sort of thing exept for free counseling for people drowning in debt. What I try to do is to plant small seeds in the mind of children surronding me, especially the ones from lower income backgrounds. I try my best to get them in touch with knowledge, art and different skills in a fun way. I also openly talk about money with them. The difference between having a high income and being rich for example. Or the proper attitude toward debt. Or a healthy distrust of financial and insurance 'advisors'. It's nice to see those seeds grow over the years. One thing that I certainly am going to do after ER is taking part in mentoring programms for kids from underpriviledged backgrounds.

Good for you for helping where you can!

I used to do volunteer work for a group that taught refugees and immigrants English as a Second Language. Most of the people we taught were very poor, several were asylum-seekers from very scary situations. A fair number couldn't read in any language. One of the many things we taught was basic money awareness including budgeting and how to navigate the world of modern credit. We also taught them about their civil rights and how to get help from the police. Our goal was that when our students left us, they should be able to operate in the US without becoming victims.

My recollection is that all the teachers (including me) were volunteers. The program coordinator was a salaried employee but I don't think she made very much. The State kicked in about 30% of the money needed to keep the  program operating and donated the space we used. The other 70% was provided by corporate and individual donors as well as a fair amount by small donors.

My impression is that there are many organizations that teach people basic skills and help them find their way in the world. Some are religious (as are many here in Memphis) and some are secular (like the one I volunteered for).

[Nancy]

I believe in sharing the wealth I've received from the privilege I've lucked into. Over the past few years, I've shifted focus to other priorities:  investing for FI, living sustainably in an urban environment, volunteering my time, donating stuff, x,y, and z. Meanwhile, my financial charitable contributions dwindled to just one annual contribution to my library without me stopping to consider if it was truly enough. I think my issues were: out of sight out of mind and too many competing interests that allowed me to feel like I was doing more than I actually was (i.e. volunteering, donating things, starting an environmental initiative at work were like giant buns bulking up and concealing my paltry charity burger). After reading this thread, I thought "shit! I meant to do that, but somewhere along the line, I turned into a tightfisted old dickface without realizing it ." So, I'm adding charitable contributions to my payroll deductions.

I must say that I wholeheartedly disagree with calling other people names (like selfish etc.) and judging others based on my ideas of how I want to live. So my calling myself a name doesn't apply to anyone else.

Tl;dr: Because I'm a tightfisted old dickface. I'm adding financial charity to my budget.

[Metta]

I guess the main issue is if the help is really helping or just the modern equivalent of medieval selling of indulgences.

'How can you live without giving back?', 'Well, seems you are doing a lot of rationalizing of your cold-hearted selfish choices...'.

The reality is that it is unbelievably difficult to change things for the better under circumstance like there are in most developing countries. And don't get me started on things like young western adults touring the world for six months on the ticket of some NGO, making no difference at all exept for a lot of photos of cute African/South American children uploaded to their facebook account.

Unfortunately, the US trend of 'CV philantropy' is just getting imported to Europe. I review more and more applications for internships and associate positions making a really big thing about pointing out all the good causes the candidate is involved in or linking to the micro NGO founded by the candidate and his or her pals. Are law school students suddenly a lot nicer than they've been five or ten years ago? Somehow I doubt it. It's just something that one does. Like wearing matching shoes and belt. Oh, and the working class kid who clawed his way upwards against all odds and has even read up what shoes to wear? Well, bad for him if he couldn't find the time to be a better person... This kind of help manages to hinder development and progress in both worlds.

But clearly there are places locally where help is needed and where the work being done is not for CV philanthropy, correct? My animal rescue friends are not saving neglected and abused pets to pad their resumes. They've already got great jobs or they are nearing retirement. When they ask for help paying for a dog's medical care, I give. I have another friend who is going into disadvantaged neighborhoods to teach art (as a free effort) and help them create vision boards. She wants them to see that they can reach higher. I donate to that so that all the art material expenses don't have to come out of her own pocket (as they otherwise would). She also is not doing this to pad her resume.

For some of us, when we see other people in pain, we feel pain as well and we want to help. If you don't, you don't.

[GetItRight]

I do not give to charity because government steals a large portion of my income to give to their charities of choice such as big pharmaceutical companies, big agricultural companies, big banks, and the whole welfare/warfare state. The only charity I've ever given is to organizations and political campaigns to lower taxes and increase freedom, and I have occasionally given food directly to the homeless but those occasions are very few and far between. When there is no longer a compulsory income tax I will gladly donate financially to charities.

[Lyssa]

I guess the main issue is if the help is really helping or just the modern equivalent of medieval selling of indulgences.

'How can you live without giving back?', 'Well, seems you are doing a lot of rationalizing of your cold-hearted selfish choices...'.

The reality is that it is unbelievably difficult to change things for the better under circumstance like there are in most developing countries. And don't get me started on things like young western adults touring the world for six months on the ticket of some NGO, making no difference at all exept for a lot of photos of cute African/South American children uploaded to their facebook account.

Unfortunately, the US trend of 'CV philantropy' is just getting imported to Europe. I review more and more applications for internships and associate positions making a really big thing about pointing out all the good causes the candidate is involved in or linking to the micro NGO founded by the candidate and his or her pals. Are law school students suddenly a lot nicer than they've been five or ten years ago? Somehow I doubt it. It's just something that one does. Like wearing matching shoes and belt. Oh, and the working class kid who clawed his way upwards against all odds and has even read up what shoes to wear? Well, bad for him if he couldn't find the time to be a better person... This kind of help manages to hinder development and progress in both worlds.

But clearly there are places locally where help is needed and where the work being done is not for CV philanthropy, correct?

Correct. And they do not show up in applications. Matter of fact a co-worker put me in touch with the local girls' shelter mentioned above. Afaik she did not mention it when applying. Of all the great programs and causes mentioned by applicants I've never heard a thing after we hired them.

[Luck12]

I do not give to charity because government steals a large portion of my income to give to their charities of choice such as big pharmaceutical companies, big agricultural companies, big banks, and the whole welfare/warfare state. The only charity I've ever given is to organizations and political campaigns to lower taxes and increase freedom, and I have occasionally given food directly to the homeless but those occasions are very few and far between. When there is no longer a compulsory income tax I will gladly donate financially to charities.

How convienient for you seeing as how there will never not be an income tax.  Let's file this under bullshit excuses for being selfish. 

Other than the fact that there's a lot of unmet need out there, I'm bothered that so many frugal people here not giving money and/or time perpetuates the stereotype that frugality is synonymous with being a heartless miserly Scrooge. 

[TheGibberingPotato]

I give zero to charity right now; once I FIRE, i will devote far more effort to how to benefit others in the world.  Your argument that people here who say that wont follow through on it... I don't know what to say, other than it is an un-substantiated argument.  Maybe it is true for some people.  I think a lot of Mustachians would prove you wrong.

My taxes, which I pay a lot of, already give to the less-fortunate.  And I agree that they should.  The main problem is that SO MANY government organization and SO MANY charities are corrupt and/or wasteful.  I will not give them my hard earned money because it would be wasted.  Yea, i'll do my homework eventually and figure out the best place to give... no I don't have to do it right now.

Instead, I make contributions in non-financial ways.  Blood donations, community service, etc...
There is nothing wrong with that.

Based on your responses here, you seem really pissed off at people that aren't like you, giving lots of money to charity.  Good for you, I honestly tip my hat to you for your generosity.  Myself, I'm not ready yet.  You can scream all you want, it's out of your sphere of control.  The rest of us will just extend our middle fingers in your direction.  You are falling into the trap that a lot of flaming liberals fall into; they get really angry and try to tell people what to do and that they are immoral otherwise... but in practice they actually hurt their cause they piss off other people and increase the divide further.  Things are all relative.  Perhaps you're a better person than us; perhaps there are people who give even more than you and think you are a terrible person for even considering to FIRE, when you could extend make lots of money over a full career where you never retire, and then donate even more.

Anyways, main point is that I think this thread could be going in a much more productive direction.

Most of us tend to agree that we live in an era where we can eat healthy things, have reasonable health care, and make gobs of money (if we live in the developed world). Many people here save an incredible sum of money every month - I am truly impressed with the resourcefulness, lack of waste, environmental responsibility, and even social responsibility of so many people on this forum.

Which leads me to my question, something that has been like a splinter in my mind every time I read a case study, journal, etc...

Why do so many people who can save & make so much money feel that it is OK not to give back? If you can save 50%, you could chop that to 45, 40, 30, etc. I personally roll with ~10% for charity but I often feel like that is woefully insufficient given the exploding volcano of cash I see monthly as well as my growing NW. People often trot out the "I'll do it later when I'm wealthier/FIRE etc," but I don't think those people are being honest with themselves. Just like forum members say about life after FIRE - you don't change just because you don't have to go to work anymore. Your hobbies are still your hobbies, your values are still your values, etc. In fact, I'd argue that many will find a reason to justify not giving, because they're worried about their portfolio value. This problem would be even worse in a financial downturn, when people need charity the most.

I'm trying not to be judgmental on this issue, but I'll admit that it is pretty damn hard and I'm failing. Yesterday, I saw a post by someone who is FIRE in his 30s, doesn't give a dime to charity, and bought a damn Humble Bundle for a penny. If people aren't familiar with the Humble Bundle, it is a great download where developers sell their games for a donation to give to charity. Buying it for a penny is like a stick in their eye, like giving a .01 tip to a waiter. Could you really not afford to bump that up to a dollar? Ten? One hundred?

I know that charity isn't perfect, but neither are your stocks or bonds since you probably own portions of a host of socially irresponsible companies. By all means, do your research and give to the issue that is closest to your heart or your home. Find charities that are managed well. If you think an issue like malaria bednets causes other problems (like overfishing), find another issue without second-order effects.

I've often heard the line "I give my time instead of money." Charities need both. It is really awesome that you give your time, but don't act like that is a 1:1 replacement for cold, hard cash. The blind orphanage appreciates me stopping by, as do the kids, but they needed food more than they needed my presence. Time does not replace money, nor does money replace time.

I realize that I might ignite a flame war, but I'm willing to take that risk. I also realize that this line of questioning may not apply to many of you - thank you for helping support valuable causes. I feel like many people are watching the dollars stack while not caring for the poor, the sick, the oppressed, etc. Your giving rate is more important than your savings rate!

PS My apologies if we've been down this road before. I did a forum search and saw one or two threads from a few years back. Maybe I don't Internet well enough. However, I'm sure we have many new members now (I've read MMM for a long time but wasn't a forum member until relatively recently).

PPS By not being ridiculous consumers, we're already doing a great deal of good. I thank you all, as does the planet. Our speakers are at 10, let's turn them up to 11.

[NICE!]

I'm starting to wonder if going into poor neighborhoods and teaching a simplified version of MMM financial skills wouldn't be more beneficial to the poor than the loose change being given.

This is an excellent idea. As the old saying goes, "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." There are plenty of organizations out there that do this type of thing. Teaching basic and simple life skills that are commutable to many different kinds of jobs. I'm not sure about the finance aspect of it, but if there isn't one in your area, then you're in a prime position to start one up!

I never heard of an NGO that does that sort of thing exept for free counseling for people drowning in debt. What I try to do is to plant small seeds in the mind of children surronding me, especially the ones from lower income backgrounds. I try my best to get them in touch with knowledge, art and different skills in a fun way. I also openly talk about money with them. The difference between having a high income and being rich for example. Or the proper attitude toward debt. Or a healthy distrust of financial and insurance 'advisors'. It's nice to see those seeds grow over the years. One thing that I certainly am going to do after ER is taking part in mentoring programms for kids from underpriviledged backgrounds.

So why don't you give to them now with your time and money? You're contradicting some of your earlier points.

Also, in regards to your previous post, there's tons of data on charities helping drive down malaria rates, along with drug companies parting with drugs for much cheaper (same deal with AIDS/PEPFAR).

And to all the people who say the government does it or should do it, you're only thinking about your own country, which is probably pretty developed. What about the other billions of humans that need help? Also, the government is way more inefficient than the best charities.

Again, we're pretty much all very fortunate here, both by today's standards and by the standards of thousands of years before us. Americans live in a hegemonic power with vast natural and human resources. Germans get to export their goods to other countries in the Eurozone that can't compete because they can't devalue their currency. The British benefitted and benefit from being on islands and their corresponding trade/naval prowess through history (think Athens). Etc Etc.

Finally, why can't people give $10/month? Are you really that anti helping others that you can't part with ten bucks for the Red Cross? Doctors Without Borders? Charity: water? It really sounds like you're just digging your heels in and I can't understand why. Do you not believe in the work of ANY charity (or library, or park, or church) on this planet? That seems extremely unlikely. I imagine that you are probably a fan of one or two. Why don't you throw them a couple bones?

I do not give to charity because government steals a large portion of my income to give to their charities of choice such as big pharmaceutical companies, big agricultural companies, big banks, and the whole welfare/warfare state. The only charity I've ever given is to organizations and political campaigns to lower taxes and increase freedom, and I have occasionally given food directly to the homeless but those occasions are very few and far between. When there is no longer a compulsory income tax I will gladly donate financially to charities.

I have a pretty decent libertarian streak, but this is BS. Because the gov gives money to Big Ag, fuck the poor and sick? There's no logic there, just being pissed off at government, which is totally cool with me...as long as you devote most of your focus to things you can actually control. You can control the net of your paycheck, even if you can't completely control the gross.

For the record, I think giving to good political causes is also charity. Working to end oppression is very valuable - for example, drug sentencing reform.

[Roots&Wings]

One, I'm wondering how much religion plays a role in people's decision to give to charity.    I don't know the answer, just guessing that atheists like myself are more inclined to believe govt. should take care of people and less inclined to think private charity is the answer.   

I'm an atheist and always have been. 

In my experience, the government is generally terrible at helping people in a timely fashion. 

Charity, in my mind, fills the gap for many people who are in desperate situations and need a couple months of support before the government support kicks in.  Not to mention the huge number of worthy causes that aren't significantly supported by the government, such as the various global charities listed in this thread or animal rescue.

Agree. Another atheist.  Helping others makes me happy, provides meaning/purpose, connects my internal motivations with external projects, so I do it.  If it didn’t, I wouldn’t. 

Have weighed the benefits of making smaller donations now, and am planning on larger grants later through investment compounding; have found a balance that works for me.

Appreciate hearing others’ perspectives! 

[Lyssa]

I'm starting to wonder if going into poor neighborhoods and teaching a simplified version of MMM financial skills wouldn't be more beneficial to the poor than the loose change being given.

This is an excellent idea. As the old saying goes, "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." There are plenty of organizations out there that do this type of thing. Teaching basic and simple life skills that are commutable to many different kinds of jobs. I'm not sure about the finance aspect of it, but if there isn't one in your area, then you're in a prime position to start one up!

I never heard of an NGO that does that sort of thing exept for free counseling for people drowning in debt. What I try to do is to plant small seeds in the mind of children surronding me, especially the ones from lower income backgrounds. I try my best to get them in touch with knowledge, art and different skills in a fun way. I also openly talk about money with them. The difference between having a high income and being rich for example. Or the proper attitude toward debt. Or a healthy distrust of financial and insurance 'advisors'. It's nice to see those seeds grow over the years. One thing that I certainly am going to do after ER is taking part in mentoring programms for kids from underpriviledged backgrounds.

So why don't you give to them now with your time and money? You're contradicting some of your earlier points.

I've never said that I don't give anything ever or that other people should never give anything. The only thing I do is strongly object to is the 'more aid = less suffering = the charitable giver being a better person' equation. Malaria and HIV are good causes and uncontroversial but not underfunded. I make an effort to search for programs for underfunded causes that sure as hell do good and do not cause collateral damage. I've found one to which I'll continue giving money. Giving time is currently limited to people close to me because of the hours I work. I can either help my parents take care of sick relatives and get involved in the lives of children close to me or I can mentor other kids. I could do both being FIRE.

Why I continue posting is that I really would like people to put a bit more thought into their charity. Just throwing x% of your pay at problem y because it sounds like 'helping people' just doesn't cut it. To give you a specific example: I donated after the tsunami in Japan but did not after the floods in Pakistan, after doctors without borders reported that they could only provide care to girls and women if their owners (aka fathers and husbands) allowed it and that a substantial number did not. If doctors traeted females like human beings instead of cattle they would face violent attacks, local authorities unwilling or unable to protect them. I'm not supporting such a system. Applying bandaids were it hurts most is keeping things going the way they are. Apparently I was not alone thinking this since NGOs really struggeled raising money for Pakistan.