Why Do Many MMMers Skip Charity?

[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.

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.

I don't believe it's selfish to want everyone to have full self ownership inclusive of all the fruits of their labor (or lack thereof), if anything is is quite generous compared the current system of theft... An selfish act that you seem to endorse, unless I'm mistaken.

There has been a long period in the US without an income tax. Do your homework.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/history/item/14268-before-the-income-tax

[Villanelle]

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.

I plan on putting my volunteer work on future job applications.  It's an explanation of how I've spent my time, and if I end up in the field I hope to, it shows relevant experience which, if I left off the volunteer stuff, I wouldn't have.  It's not the reason I volunteer, and in fact without my time spent volunteering in the library, I don't think I'd have ended up pursing a degree in Library and Info Sciences.  But I see nothing wrong with saying, "why yes, I do have experience in a library environment.  It just doesn't happen to be paid work."

I can't imagine what could be wrong with that. How does it, in any way diminish the work I've put in and the time I've given up?

[Kris]

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!

I'm an atheist and so is my husband.  I think we would both say, I believe government should take of its people, but in reality does a crap job of it and, at least in the US, picks winners and losers based on the agendas and ideological bents of big donors and lobbyists. 

Because of that, we have tons of worthy needs that will never get attention from our elected officials.  So, as someone who recognizes that I am very fortunate because of accidents of birth and to some extent by hard work, I am someone who can help ease suffering in the world. 

[Metta]

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.

This seems very sane and I agree with you.

I prefer giving locally these days because I'm able to judge for myself what is going on but I make exceptions for a variety of things.

[mm1970]

I don't think there are many people here who DON'T give to charity at all.

But the question is, how much?

I know some people tithe 10%.

10% of our gross income is about $25,000 a year.
I'm not donating $25,000 a year.

I donate to charity.  Food bank, my kid's school, my friends who do races and fundraisers.  But mostly, the school.

I'm not FIRE.
I have two kids to put through college.  (and they are young)
I still have a mortgage payment.
We pay a shit-ton in taxes that goes to pay for other people's food, food stamps, medical care, and housing.  Which is charity in itself.  (I believe strongly in having a safety net.  I pay gladly for this stuff.)

[mm1970]

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.

^^ Yup! This has always bothered me as well.  It's not unique to this forum, I hear it IRL all the time.

Personally, our PTA needs  both, and a LOT of both.  I'd rather write a check.  But we REALLY need people to donate their time.

[NICE!]

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.

So why don't you give a fuckton of money to MSF? I still think you're trying to justify your desire to not part with much of your money by questioning charity in general. You clearly know about being responsible and looking for good causes, so why don't you go balls to the wall when you find one?

Again, you've hit the genetic lottery (as have I). You live in a country that has two major navigable rivers, which is not common in Europe. It gets to export goods to poorer places with the same currency that cannot compete because they can't devalue their currencies to catch up. The society is very well-structured and is (relatively) homogenous. It has thousands of years of history, art, and development.

Other people do not have these things. Other people need help.

[NICE!]

Cathy, a few things:

1) I don't think any of us work for charities, so I don't think you can draw any type of conclusion about them from us.

2) I can't speak for others, but I'm pretty hard on people when they say things like you said - "when I'm rich." You. Already. Are. You live in the Bay Area. You're a lawyer (if I recall correctly) and thus well educated. You were born in the 21st century in a developed country where women can have a career and have equal rights. You have a computer and the Internet. You aren't starving. You are (presumably) not dying of polio or malaria. Do I know your life story? No, but Americans in general are pretty damn wealthy in the grand scheme of things.

3) Again, people need help now. Your help later doesn't save the life that needs saving now. It doesn't put the money into Alzheimers research today that may solve it in 10 years. It doesn't protect more acres of rainforest that need to be protected right now.

If you're a pure utilitarian, which the vast majority of people simply are not, then your "giving later" might make sense. But you don't know the future, you only know that things need to be fixed now. Furthermore, such an idea fails to take into account human nature, which tells us that we'll pretty much keep the habits and values we have now. If you're not giving now, I sincerely doubt you'll completely change because you have some extra cash. Or maybe you will, but it won't be nearly as much if you built the habits now. Kind of like the debt snowball, it works for a lot of people because it takes into account our nature and not just math.

I actually think your one person idea could be a good one. It is still charity.

[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.

I plan on putting my volunteer work on future job applications.  It's an explanation of how I've spent my time, and if I end up in the field I hope to, it shows relevant experience which, if I left off the volunteer stuff, I wouldn't have.  It's not the reason I volunteer, and in fact without my time spent volunteering in the library, I don't think I'd have ended up pursing a degree in Library and Info Sciences.  But I see nothing wrong with saying, "why yes, I do have experience in a library environment.  It just doesn't happen to be paid work."

I can't imagine what could be wrong with that. How does it, in any way diminish the work I've put in and the time I've given up?

It does not. I work in biglaw and the charity line items I see in the applications have no connection at all to our day to day work and quite frankly are absolutely non-sensical most of the time. I remember the shipping of baby clothes from Europe to Indian orphanages. Apparently Indians can't produce any baby clothes that could be bought there and I'm having an absolutely wrong idea about temperatures in India being such that the lack of warm clothes is not the biggest problem of orphans...

That's the kind of thing I had in mind. Mentioning volunteer work in the library when applying for a library job is absolutely reasonable and the work as such is one of the services that I consider very valuable.

[kpd905]

I don't think anyone needs to be looked down upon for not donating to charity.  It isn't a required activity.

As others have said, many charities are pretty terrible in regards to getting your money to the desired cause.  You might be making a big donation that becomes a yearly bonus check for the CEO.

[PatStab]

I am new on this forum.

I consider us pretty well off, but we have no pensions or anything, will have to fund our retirement from savings and CD's are earning nothing, SS, and some rentals.  I do give to charity.  Some I give to people I know that raise money for worthy causes.  I used to give to a lot more until I read the literature about how much was going to fund raising so that made me quit. 

I give to the Salvation Army but again not as much as I used to.  We supported one of the kids overseas until she was 18 and I didn't take on another because we are getting old and if I do it want to do it till they age out.

But a big reason I am cutting back, we are 69 getting ready to retire.  We have a mentally challenged daughter and she is going to need placed soon.  We are having big time emotional issues with her at age 44 and I can't take much more of it.  I doubt the government will help us, there are waiting lists everywhere and looking at private placement we are seeing about $60k a year.  Well we still have a long time to live and take care of us yet so even with having good savings this is going to eat it up fast.  My husband is even considering working longer if we have to pay for it.  So for us we are kind of up in the air right now with even good savings.

[NICE!]

Donating to charity can be approached as a decision based on math, not based on emotions. If you want to do the most good, charity is an inefficient way to achieve that. It's certainly convenient, just like the financial advisor, but this community often values a better outcome over convenience -- of course, your mileage may vary.

Do you have a better system for preventing malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa? Can you do better than the Gates Foundation in educating people on contraceptives and family planning? If you do, please do it! Maybe that means you donate time & money to your local library, meals on wheels, SPCA, or whatever. You're still basically agreeing with me while trying to find a way around simply saying you don't want to do it.

Also, I don't see how the admin cost point applies. You will have to pay some administrative costs. See the previous comment from a poster about how sometimes low administrative costs can indicate lack of effectiveness. If some dude is just driving around and delivering soccer balls for 1% admin costs, he isn't nearly as effective as a program that employs locals to build a soccer pitch, hires coaches to teach the sport as well as sportsmanship and teamwork, etc.

Should you fund ridiculously wasteful charities? No, but don't act like there aren't extremely well-run and effective charities out there. Shit, there are many sites/orgs that help you figure this info out since transparency is valued in the NGO/Charity world.

[Lyssa]

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.

So why don't you give a fuckton of money to MSF? I still think you're trying to justify your desire to not part with much of your money by questioning charity in general. You clearly know about being responsible and looking for good causes, so why don't you go balls to the wall when you find one?

Again, you've hit the genetic lottery (as have I). You live in a country that has two major navigable rivers, which is not common in Europe. It gets to export goods to poorer places with the same currency that cannot compete because they can't devalue their currencies to catch up. The society is very well-structured and is (relatively) homogenous. It has thousands of years of history, art, and development.

Other people do not have these things. Other people need help.

I'm going to purchase them good government and navigable rivers asap with my fuckton of money. :-)

Jokes aside: taking your stance to its logic conclusion we all should abandon our quest for FI, endorse frugality, work till 70 and donate all the excess money. The opposite position is sprinting to FI as fast as you can and leaving all your money to your own children. Then there are the ones who, like Warren Buffet, decide to accumulate as much as they can during their lifetime and leave most of it for the good of mankind once they are done heaping and piling, usually they structure their inheritance in a way that safeguards against the most common behavioural hazards rendering most charities ineffective (anyone here doubting that Warren is a better accumulator than some charity board and that the way he structured it is in the end doing the most good?). Then the ones who give nothing before and a lot after FI. And no, this is not putting it of forever. A relative of mine has done exactly that.

It's a spectrum.

And the position on this spectrum alone does not tell us who has changed the world for the better and who has changed it for the worse. Maybe the donations of person A just go up in smoke making no differece at all. Maybe they contribute to a youth bulge causing a civil war 20 years later. Maybe the child receiving a big inheritance does something useful with it, maybe it uses it's instant FI to become a great artist.

Personally, I have decided to give a little now and more later. I've made my decision what's enough for me and so far the number has not increased with the figures on my account statements. 'More' giving will in all likelihood not mean more organizations but larger amounts to the ones passing my vetting process until then. And yes I think it does make a difference if you live in a high or a low tax country. You may call it rationalizing, I call it math.

[Villanelle]

I should also say that a good deal of my giving isn't through official channels and therefore doesn't come with a tax benefit, but I still count it. 

I lived in Japan on 3/11.  I had students and friends whose families were directly effected.  I spent hundreds of dollars on winter clothes, as I was told that was one of the biggest needs in the region.  I handed them off to a woman who drove to the region and brought them to shelters.  She wasn't an official 501c3, of course.  But I knew that my donation was getting where it needed to be.

When I lived in the States, I often did errands in an area very close to the VA, and there were a lot of homeless vets panhandling.  I always carried food (granola bars, cracker packs, individually bagged nuts, etc.) and handed them out to anyone who took them.  (Many of the "will work for food" crowd weren't interested.)  Again, not something I could write off, but I don't require a tax write off to do good. 

Also, many of the organizations I've been involved with actually needed time more than they needed money.  Which makes me wonder if the posters (or only 1?) in this thread who seem to look down their noses at those who give mostly time have ever actually bothered to give time or inquire about it, or if they just assume their method is superior and enjoy passing judgement on those who make a different decision. 

[driftwood]

I don't donate to charity.  I probably never will.  I'm OK with that.

[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.

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.

I've tried reading up on this, and it looks like no charity calculates administrative costs the same way. So some would include "on the ground" costs, others would not.
These articles were quite good: http://www.theguardian.com/voluntary-sector-network/2013/may/02/good-charities-admin-costs-research
http://philanthropy.com/article/Overhead-Costs-Pose-Dilemma/139329/

[Lyssa]

I am new on this forum.

I consider us pretty well off, but we have no pensions or anything, will have to fund our retirement from savings and CD's are earning nothing, SS, and some rentals.  I do give to charity.  Some I give to people I know that raise money for worthy causes.  I used to give to a lot more until I read the literature about how much was going to fund raising so that made me quit. 

I give to the Salvation Army but again not as much as I used to.  We supported one of the kids overseas until she was 18 and I didn't take on another because we are getting old and if I do it want to do it till they age out.

But a big reason I am cutting back, we are 69 getting ready to retire.  We have a mentally challenged daughter and she is going to need placed soon.  We are having big time emotional issues with her at age 44 and I can't take much more of it.  I doubt the government will help us, there are waiting lists everywhere and looking at private placement we are seeing about $60k a year.  Well we still have a long time to live and take care of us yet so even with having good savings this is going to eat it up fast.  My husband is even considering working longer if we have to pay for it.  So for us we are kind of up in the air right now with even good savings.

A special needs child or a long term care case are very demanding and scary from a financial perspective. Put your own oxygen mask on first and don't let anyone tell you that you should give x to the local congregation and y to fight hunger. I wish you the very best in finding a good place for your daughter and a secure retirement for both of you. Regarding the latter there are a lot of useful tips in other sections of this forum and if you have a specific question there is almost always somebody there with the necessary expertise.

[Goldielocks]

Donating to charity can be approached as a decision based on math, not based on emotions. If you want to do the most good, charity is an inefficient way to achieve that. It's certainly convenient, just like the financial advisor, but this community often values a better outcome over convenience -- of course, your mileage may vary.

Do you have a better system for preventing malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa? Can you do better than the Gates Foundation in educating people on contraceptives and family planning? If you do, please do it! Maybe that means you donate time & money to your local library, meals on wheels, SPCA, or whatever. You're still basically agreeing with me while trying to find a way around simply saying you don't want to do it.

Also, I don't see how the admin cost point applies. You will have to pay some administrative costs. See the previous comment from a poster about how sometimes low administrative costs can indicate lack of effectiveness. If some dude is just driving around and delivering soccer balls for 1% admin costs, he isn't nearly as effective as a program that employs locals to build a soccer pitch, hires coaches to teach the sport as well as sportsmanship and teamwork, etc.

I will say it again, the dude delivering the soccer balls is part of the PROGRAM cost. Likewise the coaches and builder of that soccer pitch.

Only his costs associted with filing his non profit paperwork, advertising for donors, or issuing tax receipts would be admin costs.

In your scenario, even with the dude getting a salary and expenses paid to hand out balls, admin costs should be virtually zero.

This really begs the question then about 15% , 30% and 50%+ admin cost charities/ lotteries/ fund raisers.  Some of them have very valuable goals that make the high admin costs acceptable to them and their donors.

As an MMM, I tend to disagree about spending $100,000 to make $150,000 and that put me off large giving until I research more.

[MGeegs]

After reading "The Life You Can Save" by Peter Singer (which, by the way, covers many of the arguments against donating that have been brought up in this thread) I have resolved to give 10% of my income to charity, especially to developing countries. Globally, I am the 1%. It is the right thing to do.

If you don't, I'm not sure how you can sleep at night. Honestly I have lost a lot of respect for the concept of badassity after reading some of these answers.

[ChrisLansing]

After reading "The Life You Can Save" by Peter Singer (which, by the way, covers many of the arguments against donating that have been brought up in this thread) I have resolved to give 10% of my income to charity, especially to developing countries. Globally, I am the 1%. It is the right thing to do.

If you don't, I'm not sure how you can sleep at night. Honestly I have lost a lot of respect for the concept of badassity after reading some of these answers.

I sleep well, knowing that I've paid my 15% taxes (Not to mention 4.2% for state and 1% to my city) and knowing that a portion of it goes to welfare programs that help people less fortunate than me.   It's obvious that govt. programs are doing most of the heavy lifting; most people on welfare are getting the majority of their help from the govt., not from soup kitchens or church outreach programs.    It's obvious that my tax money is alleviating poverty so there is no reason for me to loose sleep over it.   

[MGeegs]

After reading "The Life You Can Save" by Peter Singer (which, by the way, covers many of the arguments against donating that have been brought up in this thread) I have resolved to give 10% of my income to charity, especially to developing countries. Globally, I am the 1%. It is the right thing to do.

If you don't, I'm not sure how you can sleep at night. Honestly I have lost a lot of respect for the concept of badassity after reading some of these answers.

I sleep well, knowing that I've paid my 15% taxes (Not to mention 4.2% for state and 1% to my city) and knowing that a portion of it goes to welfare programs that help people less fortunate than me.   It's obvious that govt. programs are doing most of the heavy lifting; most people on welfare are getting the majority of their help from the govt., not from soup kitchens or church outreach programs.    It's obvious that my tax money is alleviating poverty so there is no reason for me to loose sleep over it.

What about for those less fortunate outside your own country...? Or do you think your government has totally got that in hand too?

If you tax burden ever falls (say, due to RE) would you pick up the shortfall to make it 15% again?

[BlueHouse]

I used to give a large percentage of my income, but stopped when I had some business misfortunes and my income dropped substantially for a few years.  I also moved and gave up my board membership (which required substantial cash donations from board members).  Once I started bringing in the big bucks again, I was terrified of losing it all again.  So my focus now is on myself and getting to a point where I will never be in a position to need help from others.  I also provide assistance (loans and gifts) to extended family when they need it. 
When I feel 90% or even 100% safe again, I will start donating more to charity. 

As for those who say giving time is not the same as giving money, I whole-heartedly disagree.  Charities and support organizations need 3 types of people:  Doers, donors, and door-openers.  All three are equally important and when people donate time and energy, it can be much more valuable than a few hundred dollars. 

[Cassie]

WE have always donated both time & $. The amount of $ has really varied through the years. When we were young & poor we only gave $ to a person in a worse situation then ours.  I believe everyone needs to help in some shape or form. I think it is silly to wait until you are FIRE. You can forego something small in life & make a big difference for someone.  Paying it forward really does make the world go round:))

[Alabaster]

I volunteer and give 10% of my income to charity. My only real guilt is that almost all 10% goes to the Church and my particular church isn't the best at getting that money to people who really need it...

I was recently super disappointed to see that the tax code doesn't really encourage my giving. As a single, childless guy I don't really have deductions beyond charitable giving. Since it was my first year working a good job and I only worked 1/2 of it, my charitable donations only barely passed the standard deduction.

[Daley]

If you wouldn't entrust your money to a financial advisor selling you 5% front-load fee funds with $1,000 early redemption fees, why would you entrust your money to a charity with a 30% expense ratio (at best) and no possibility of early redemption whatsoever?

I get what you're trying to say, but as someone who HAS worked in the NPO sector with orgs that don't have ridiculous CEO salaries, people gotta eat lady.

The problem with volunteer labor is that you HAVE to take what the volunteer gives you, and be grateful for it. Unfortunately, a lot of volunteers cause more work than help address and others have lives. You can't run an effective mission if you don't have the dedicated and talented staff to back it up, and that means paying for the core labor. Guess what? That paid labor usually takes a massive cut over their potential private sector salaries because they believe in the cause, and the NPO couldn't afford the talent otherwise.

And let us not ignore the additional benefits to the community that employment from an NPO creates to help build that very community they're in... in the United States, time served in a 501(c)(3) helps write off student loan debt for that educated and skilled laborer who couldn't repay that debt otherwise at the pay-rate they take working there. There's also the employment opportunities with some NPOs where they hire and pay people who wouldn't otherwise be able to find a job elsewhere. Like ex-cons who have served their time and deserve the opportunity to try and become productive members of society again, or the handicapped who may be good at physical labor with a little supervision and giving them a paying job helps relieve the financial stress to their family that there might otherwise be. That's all expense overhead, and doesn't go straight into the core charity's causes advertised on the letterhead... but it still frequently creates a wake of good works and love beyond just the core mission. To dismiss all charitable giving to any organization because a handful of colossal mega-NPOs overpay their leadership is a bit short sighted.

[caliq]

I volunteer and give 10% of my income to charity. My only real guilt is that almost all 10% goes to the Church and my particular church isn't the best at getting that money to people who really need it...

I was recently super disappointed to see that the tax code doesn't really encourage my giving. As a single, childless guy I don't really have deductions beyond charitable giving. Since it was my first year working a good job and I only worked 1/2 of it, my charitable donations only barely passed the standard deduction.

Why not redirect your giving to an organization that you feel makes the best use of your money?

[ChrisLansing]

After reading "The Life You Can Save" by Peter Singer (which, by the way, covers many of the arguments against donating that have been brought up in this thread) I have resolved to give 10% of my income to charity, especially to developing countries. Globally, I am the 1%. It is the right thing to do.

If you don't, I'm not sure how you can sleep at night. Honestly I have lost a lot of respect for the concept of badassity after reading some of these answers.

I sleep well, knowing that I've paid my 15% taxes (Not to mention 4.2% for state and 1% to my city) and knowing that a portion of it goes to welfare programs that help people less fortunate than me.   It's obvious that govt. programs are doing most of the heavy lifting; most people on welfare are getting the majority of their help from the govt., not from soup kitchens or church outreach programs.    It's obvious that my tax money is alleviating poverty so there is no reason for me to loose sleep over it.

What about for those less fortunate outside your own country...? Or do you think your government has totally got that in hand too?

If you tax burden ever falls (say, due to RE) would you pick up the shortfall to make it 15% again?

I admit my focus is on the poor in the US.   I prefer to let other countries sort their own mess.   

Your second question is interesting.   The 15% I currently pay doesn't all go to welfare.  Some  goes to weapons systems the Pentagon doesn't want, some goes to highways, some goes to the FBI, etc.     So, maybe the thing to do would be to figure out what % goes to welfare, then maintain that percentage with charitable giving if my tax rate goes down. 

[wtjbatman]

I volunteer monthly to bi-monthly at Veteran's events, and I donate a (smallish) amount yearly to similar causes.

I could certainly do more. But right now, I'm happy with my contribution to my community, however small it is in the grand scheme of things.

[deborah]

According to MMM, "[t]his 'percentage of income' concept is one of the most anti-Mustachian ones out there".

Budgeting by percentage is fundamentally anti-Mustachian whether you are setting aside 10% of your income for a luxury car loan payment or for charity. Your income level is an arbitrary fleeting figure, and should not inform your spending decisions.

In my case, if I donated 10% of my gross income to charity, I would be donating more to charity than the total amount I spent per year on everything combined other than housing and taxes. That is probably actually true for 5% as well. Does it make any sense to allocate more of my income to any one purpose than the total amount that I spend on everything else combined (other than taxes and rent)?

If you want to donate to charity, that's a respectable choice, but deciding to donate a percentage of your income is an anti-Mustachian way to allocate funds.

But he was talking about the standard financial planner % of income that you will need in retirement. How does that translate into charity?

[deborah]

I know that MMM has said he intends to have the income from the blog go to charity. I would consider that to be a counter argument, as it is obviously a percentage.

[Otsog]

Why Do Many MMMers Skip Charity?

I presume it's because many MMMers comprehend the awesome power of compound interest.

OP and others in this thread are philosophically against the Giving Pledge. Probably the greatest philanthropic endeavour of human kind.  Those cold hearted bastards.

[deeshen13]

No, we just

Why Do Many MMMers Skip Charity?

I presume it's because many MMMers comprehend the awesome power of compound interest.

OP and others in this thread are philosophically against the Giving Pledge. Probably the greatest philanthropic endeavour of human kind.  Those cold hearted bastards.

Nope.  We comprehend quite well how compound interest works.  We also comprehend quite well how often people plan to compound their money now, with the idea to donate later, but mysteriously when the time comes it isn't all given.

Are you setting aside a charity giving investment account with money that "would be given" but you'd rather compound it and then give?  I'll bet the money you "would be giving" that you aren't.

Cognitive dissonance hurting selfish peoples' egos in the thread.

[Otsog]

We also comprehend quite well how often people plan to compound their money now, with the idea to donate later, but mysteriously when the time comes it isn't all given.

Really? When did this happen? Any examples?

[MidwestBiker]

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.

What do you mean "roll with about 10% for charity"? Let's see some numbers. How much did you give in 2014? In dollars. What was the percentage? (I hope it was at least 9.5%.) To which charities? How much to each? What were the sources and amounts of your 2014 income this "~10%" came from?

Why don't you give more than 10%? Surely you could give one more dollar?

I'm trying not to be judgmental on this issue, but I'll admit that it is pretty damn hard and I'm failing.

I agree that you are being judgmental.

[innerscorecard]

As I've written on my blog, I think  how much anyone donates to charity is that person's business. As with all deeply personal things, including money in general, it is that person's decision, and I think it is inappropriate to require everyone to give with coercion.

[NICE!]

My post was not an argument against donating to charity. It was an argument against setting aside a percentage of your income for charity (or for anything), which is what the OP and various posters proposed that we should do.

Look, Cathy. I love your posts on this forum. I think we'd get along in real life. But on this thread, I think you're digging in your heels because you don't like reconsidering your values. It is like the person who doesn't like seeing frugal people with big bank accounts because it shines too bright a light on their consumerism.

First we talked about how you'll wait until you're rich. Then we talked about how some charities don't manage funds well. Then we talked about the welfare state. Now we're talking about percentages? I actually agree with you in principle on this last point since I don't feel that my 10% makes sense or is sufficient, but I think you're tilting at windmills.

For the last time - you're already rich. People need help now AND later. There are tons of organizations that do good in the world and don't waste a ton. The government doesn't solve all problems via the welfare state. We really can make things better for people.

What in the world is the problem with parting with some of your largesse to help prevent malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa? To protect our national parks? To save the bees? To support prison sentencing reform? Pick a cause you care about (I'm sure there is one) and own the hell out of it. Give to it (time and money). Advocate for it. Shit, be a board member.

I think I understand where Lyssa is coming from now. I still disagree with her and think she should consider the aforementioned book "The Life You Can Save," but she is not questioning for the sake of questioning. She gives some now and plans to give a shit ton later.

Side note for Lyssa - that's one thing I really like about German culture (lived there for a year when I was younger) - in my experience, Germans are forthright and just call things as they see them. It took me awhile to get used to because to an American it can sometimes sound like a biting criticism when it is really just a statement of what the person perceives as reality.

For the person who insinuated that I don't think giving time is valuable - false. Read my posts. I said charities need both. Also, read IP's post regarding how giving time only helps so much - MSF needs Doctors, ESL programs need teachers, etc. They need cash at some point.

tl;dr
- Charities need cash & time.
- Not all charities are bad.
- If you're on this forum and in the developed world, you're probably already rich and can afford to help.
- The welfare state doesn't fix everything and doesn't do a ton for people outside your country.
- Almost no one here is espousing a radical individualist 'help no one, live for yourself only' philosophy.
- I think I understand you now, Lyssa.
- Cathy, I love you on this forum, which is why I find perplexing what I perceive as your intransigence on this issue.

As I've written on my blog, I think  how much anyone donates to charity is that person's business. As with all deeply personal things, including money in general, it is that person's decision, and I think it is inappropriate to require everyone to give with coercion.

Well according to many posters on this thread, that's what the gov is doing via the welfare state. How about you go question that instead of worrying about a debate of ideas?

Seriously, we have case studies and question consumerism all the time - how in the holy hell is talking about this issue out of bounds? You're like the 3rd person who has said this via a 1 or 2 liner.

[MGeegs]

Seriously, we have case studies and question consumerism all the time - how in the holy hell is talking about this issue out of bounds?

+1

[Cottonswab]

Quid pro quo. 

[Leisured]

If a charity spends, say, 10% on admin, is the glass 90% full or 10% empty?

I like the two charities below, because the benefits go directly to those who need them; removal of cataracts for those with them, and the patients treated on a Mercy Ship.

The Hollows Foundation just delivers basic eye surgery, usually removing cataracts, and trains local people in these methods. It gives no money, and the beneficiaries are exclusively those with cataracts.

http://www.hollows.org.au/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkgdFPpc900

Be inspired.

A Mercy Ship is a floating hospital, staffed by volunteers, which stays in a port in a poor country for a few months, treats local people with severe medical problems which is beyond the scope of local doctors, mainly due to lack of facilities, drugs or money. The patients are the beneficiaries. More than half the world’s population live in or near a port.

Medically trained volunteers have to pay their living expenses, but I understand that it is usual for church groups and service organizations to raise funds to pay the living expenses of a medical professional on board a mercy ship.

http://www.mercyships.org/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHWdOq2e_V8&list=PL50CF8FD420F62280

Be inspired.

[startingsmall]

A friend of mine once made a comment that I don't entirely agree with, but seems relevant now.  He said that he gives excessively, thus significantly limiting the contributions that he makes to savings because "I can't bring myself to save for an emergency when there are people dying all over this planet every day of preventable causes.  THAT is an emergency - what am I saving for that could be more important?"

Like I said, I don't take it to his extreme... but it definitely caused me to re-evaluate what I had been previously doing, which was putting off charitable giving (well, beyond the paltry $100-200/yr that I was giving at the time) until I reached some arbitrary savings goal.  Now we give more.  And yes, we'll give even more when we reach another equally arbitrary savings goal later this year, but people dying / the destruction of our planet / the disappearance of the arts in schools / choose your favorite cause IS an emergency.

[NICE!]

Why Do Many MMMers Skip Charity?

I presume it's because many MMMers comprehend the awesome power of compound interest.

OP and others in this thread are philosophically against the Giving Pledge. Probably the greatest philanthropic endeavour of human kind.  Those cold hearted bastards.

Bullshit. Don't put words in my mouth. I said do stuff now AND later.

[UltraRunning]

I just want to not work as soon as possible. Simple as that. 

[southern granny]

Fascinating thread.  I have read much, but not all, so forgive me if these points have already been made.

1.  The excuses being stated for not giving are the exact ones that Ebenezer Scrooge makes in A Christmas Carol. 

2.  There are web sites that review and report on charities such as Charitynavigator, so that you can see how much of their donations actually benefit their stated causes. 

I do give a church tithe and donate to several charities but with all the scammers out there, I am careful about who I donate to.  I make no donations to telephone solicitors.  Charities that I routinely give to include the Red Cross, United Way, St Judes, and our local no kill humane society.   I volunteer washing dishes at a soup kitchen once a week.  I am a blood donor.    If my children were in better financial situations, I would donate more.   It feels good to help others.

[RetiredAt63]

I thought this was a good article by Statistics Canada.  It looked at charitable giving not on a tax-eligible basis, but by people donating time/money to all sorts of things.  Many interesting trends.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2012001/article/11637-eng.htm

Three comments 

1. a lot of people here seem to be concentrating on charities about people, and to a lesser extent animals.  There are many groups that work on improving living conditions through political activity, and many who do the same by working on environmental issues.  These are both worthwhile areas to give time/money to, but no-one seems to be discussing/considering them.

2.  As some-one above said, put on your own oxygen mask first.  People can only do so much with the resources they have, and those who give a little when they have a little are likely to give a lot when they have a lot.  Others think "volunteering is for suckers".  I have been told that to my face.

3.  Giving is an attitude - and is a blood donor (here in Canada it is totally voluntary,no money) any more or less valuable than some-one who faints at the sight of blood and so doesn't donate?  That person may do something else that is not on the blood donor's radar.  People will do what they can as they can. 

This is a forum, most of us will never meet in real life, and we can have all sorts of interesting discussions.  But if a person is heavily into giving to society in whatever way they can, IRL they may wish to avoid contact with those who think they are suckers.  The person who told me I was a sucker for volunteering is out of my life.  My best friend thinks that we owe it to society and ourselves to give back when we have benefited so much.  That is just one of the many reasons she is my best friend.

[Milizard]

You know the saying that charity begins at home?  Well, it could be argued that I'm giving $50,000/year to charity.  I'm donating 50 hrs/week to taking care of my mom.  Meanwhile, I'm forgoing a salary/career and time with my young children.  My husband is supporting the 4 of us, including paying out mortgage and saving 11% for retirement, on $45,000/year.  Where should I get more money or time to donate to outside charities, pray tell? 

After my mom is gone, I'd like to donate to the charity called, helping my kids pay for college.  (I'm sorry, but the MMM philosophy on not helping your kids pay for college is unreasonable considering the expected family contribution.)  Outside charities can get in line after that.  So, yeah, they're going to have to wait until sometime in the future.  Sorry if this seems too Ebeneezer Scrooge for you all.

[Villanelle]

No, we just

Why Do Many MMMers Skip Charity?

I presume it's because many MMMers comprehend the awesome power of compound interest.

OP and others in this thread are philosophically against the Giving Pledge. Probably the greatest philanthropic endeavour of human kind.  Those cold hearted bastards.

Nope.  We comprehend quite well how compound interest works.  We also comprehend quite well how often people plan to compound their money now, with the idea to donate later, but mysteriously when the time comes it isn't all given.

Are you setting aside a charity giving investment account with money that "would be given" but you'd rather compound it and then give?  I'll bet the money you "would be giving" that you aren't.

Cognitive dissonance hurting selfish peoples' egos in the thread.

And if my will dictates already that my money to to charity, I am still the selfish, greedy, shouldn't-be-able-to-sleep-at-night ass that many in this thread think?

Several of you seem to steadfastly believe that no one who says, "compound interest, and I'll give later", will actually do so, and yet you base that on nearly nothing. 

Also, nearly my entire professional career was spent working for non-profits.  The level of waste was often insane. 

I give fairly modestly (certainly less than 5%) now.  I give generously of my time now (though to some in this thread, that doesn't count either) because I happen to have more of that since I'm not working at the moment.  And I have already made arrangements that when I (and DH) am gone, my money will go almost entirely to charitable causes. 

yes, I am already rich.  Absolutely.  But by holding on to that excess money now, it can do more good down the road.  Yes, someone *today* may die because they drank contaminated water when I could have bought 1 well and saved him.  that's horrific.  But if I save him now, then I can't build 10 wells in the future and save 10 times as many people.  It's awful that anyone has to die for not having clean water (or medical treatment, or whatever).  But since I will never have enough money (or time) to save them all, I am making the choice that saves the most.  That those are people born in 2040 instead of 2000 isn't relevant to the amount off good done, is it? 

Also, the people casting aspersions in this thread are probably doing more harm than good.  Telling people they should be ashamed of themselves, that you don't know now the sleep at night, and all that nonsense, is unlikely to win them over.  You simply force them to dig in their heels, and also show them that giving to charity certain doesn't exclude someone from being a self-rightous prick. So you saying they are jerks, while acting like a jerk, is unlikely to be productive, yes? There's a reason that probably no charity ever has put up a billboard saying, "You are an asshole if you don't donate to save a child or a dog."  Not great marketing.  So if your goal truly is to get people to see things differently and to open up their wallets, you are doing it wrong.  Very, very wrong.  If your goal is to make yourself feel good by framing yourself as morally superior, by all means, continue tossing about insults.   

[Tabaxus]

The above was well said. 

My spouse and I have a joint will.  If one of us dies first, the other gets 100% (in addition to the life insurance).  After that, the formula is "(1) enough to fund the equivalent of 4 years of in-state tuition in the state of residence of each of my children; (2) enough to godson to fund the equivalent of 4 years of in-state tuition in his state of residence, which is lost if the godson does not go to college, and is capped by whatever he actually pays in tuition less scholarships received and whatever his parents put away (his parents do not know we are saving for his, because we don't want to provide incentive for them not to save); (3) a trust for my father's life; (4) the remainder to charity."  We have the will structured as a waterfall, so it covers any scenario--if the kids are already through college and my father has passed, it will all go to charity; if we have two kids and die early without sufficient money to cover the college for both of them, the money will provide for the basic needs of each until they turn 18 and, after that, will be split between them for college, etc.

My savings goals are precisely the same, except #1 is "financial independence for my family."

Until I can hit FI for my family, college for my kids (if I have any), college for my godson (if it's needed), and  funding a reasonable trust for my father's needs, should that become necessary, my financial charity will be limited to what I am forced to do as professional obligation at my office.  And because I can always get more work at work, and each additional hour I work translates into a higher bonus, time = money for me, so I will not donate my time (other than pro bono legal work, which I do when I have time to do it).  People are entitled to judge me for that if they want to, but I couldn't care less. People who assume that my spouse and I won't give to charity as outlines above are simply wrong, so whatever.

[ChrisLansing]

My post was not an argument against donating to charity. It was an argument against setting aside a percentage of your income for charity (or for anything), which is what the OP and various posters proposed that we should do.

Look, Cathy. I love your posts on this forum. I think we'd get along in real life. But on this thread, I think you're digging in your heels because you don't like reconsidering your values. It is like the person who doesn't like seeing frugal people with big bank accounts because it shines too bright a light on their consumerism.

First we talked about how you'll wait until you're rich. Then we talked about how some charities don't manage funds well. Then we talked about the welfare state. Now we're talking about percentages? I actually agree with you in principle on this last point since I don't feel that my 10% makes sense or is sufficient, but I think you're tilting at windmills.

For the last time - you're already rich. People need help now AND later. There are tons of organizations that do good in the world and don't waste a ton. The government doesn't solve all problems via the welfare state. We really can make things better for people.

What in the world is the problem with parting with some of your largesse to help prevent malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa? To protect our national parks? To save the bees? To support prison sentencing reform? Pick a cause you care about (I'm sure there is one) and own the hell out of it. Give to it (time and money). Advocate for it. Shit, be a board member.

I think I understand where Lyssa is coming from now. I still disagree with her and think she should consider the aforementioned book "The Life You Can Save," but she is not questioning for the sake of questioning. She gives some now and plans to give a shit ton later.

Side note for Lyssa - that's one thing I really like about German culture (lived there for a year when I was younger) - in my experience, Germans are forthright and just call things as they see them. It took me awhile to get used to because to an American it can sometimes sound like a biting criticism when it is really just a statement of what the person perceives as reality.

For the person who insinuated that I don't think giving time is valuable - false. Read my posts. I said charities need both. Also, read IP's post regarding how giving time only helps so much - MSF needs Doctors, ESL programs need teachers, etc. They need cash at some point.

tl;dr
- Charities need cash & time.
- Not all charities are bad.
- If you're on this forum and in the developed world, you're probably already rich and can afford to help.
- The welfare state doesn't fix everything and doesn't do a ton for people outside your country.
- Almost no one here is espousing a radical individualist 'help no one, live for yourself only' philosophy.
- I think I understand you now, Lyssa.
- Cathy, I love you on this forum, which is why I find perplexing what I perceive as your intransigence on this issue.

As I've written on my blog, I think  how much anyone donates to charity is that person's business. As with all deeply personal things, including money in general, it is that person's decision, and I think it is inappropriate to require everyone to give with coercion.

Well according to many posters on this thread, that's what the gov is doing via the welfare state. How about you go question that instead of worrying about a debate of ideas?

Seriously, we have case studies and question consumerism all the time - how in the holy hell is talking about this issue out of bounds? You're like the 3rd person who has said this via a 1 or 2 liner.

If reference to the two items I bolded above, working backwards;

Several of the more libertarian types have chimed in to suggest that taxation is something akin to confiscation or theft.    I just want to be clear that is not my position.   I'm not a libertarian (I'm a grown-up)  I don't see taxes as theft I see them as a responsibility.  We live in a society, not as individuals, and we have public expenditures for the common good, and those must be paid for.    I see the welfare state being for the common good, and I'm happy to pay for it.       

It's true the govt. doesn't solve all the problems through the welfare state.    It's also true that the welfare state is doing the heavy lifting.    People don't get their EBT cards from a church or a soup kitchen.    People might get temporary rent help from private charity but they get on-going section 8 through the govt.     It's clear to me that "the welfare state" is doing the vast majority of the work alleviating poverty.    That's why I sleep well, knowing that my taxes have done more to deal with poverty than the few bucks I could throw in a kettle during X-mass season, and more than if I were to spend my time washing dishes in a soup kitchen.    It's kind of like the old 80/20 rule.   The govt is doing 80% of the work alleviating poverty and I choose not to give a little more to the largely ineffectual private charities who pick up the other 20% of the work load.  (and private charity isn't solving all the problems either)  I'm not sure why I should be likened to Scrooge (not by the OP but buy some others) just because I recognize that my very effective "giving" to the welfare state is doing the lion's share of the work already.     

The OP asked, in a subsequent post, why can't we give $10/month?    The obvious answer is we can.    But why not $20 ?   or $100 ?   $1000?      Why is it so important to you that we give something above and beyond taxation, as though if we don't give any of our take home pay to charity we aren't doing anything?    And why, buy implication, is any amount "OK" ?    Is 10% really enough?    Shouldn't it be 35% ?     Why?  Why not?   

Finally, it seems that many, including the OP (I know you'll correct me if I'm wrong) see any charity you want to give to as being worthwhile.   The thing is to pick one and support it.    I'm afraid I don't get this.    How is the aids epidemic in parts of Africa the moral equivalent of saving stray kitties from being put down by the local animal shelter? 

[MidwestBiker]

How about you go question that instead of worrying about a debate of ideas?

Don't see much of a debate here. Just a self-righteous, holier-than-thou harangue.

Bullshit. Don't put words in my mouth. I said do stuff now AND later.

Talk about bullshit! The OP is bullshit. Why no details on your approach to charity?

[JLee]

One of my first thoughts on this topic is why do many people keep donating to charity when they're buried in debt...but that's a personal choice that I won't judge them on.

I was raised in a very strict religious household and tithed 10%. I have been working since the age of 11 and didn't receive an allowance either. I don't generally donate money (I will at the occasional event/etc but not as a habit); part of that may be due to the choice I have now that I didn't before.

I do donate stuff to Goodwill and try to pass out bottled water to the homeless people with signs on the side of the road. I would like to foster animals for a local rescue, but haven't done that yet. I do not feel that I am in the financial position to be donating $thousands to charity- just like the oxygen masks in airliners, I think you should help yourself first and once you're good to go, then you should help others. I utterly despise judgmental people, too - so everyone talking shit about people who don't meet your personal 'charity standards' aren't doing your cause any good.