Why Do Many MMMers Skip Charity?

[Metta]

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?

I know many people who would argue that working to alleviate the AIDS epidemic is lower on the moral framework than saving helpless kittens. I'm not one of them but I respect that this is their opinion.

How you live your life is more important than what you give to charity. Living in a way that reduces how much you take from the world, that reduces the degradation to the planet caused by your use of the things of the world, and that reduces the enmiseration of people in the world is important. Living so that you are giving back within your paid work, is also a way of improving the world and is arguably more important than charity. (Though I've noticed that those who are involved in compassionate work also seem to be more likely to give to charity than those who are not. But that is anecdote not data.)

I think the purpose of saying "Give where your heart directs you" is to avoid saying "If you don't support my charity, you are an evil bastard". It is an acknowledgement that not everyone agrees on the best way to heal the world but that as long as we are all doing something, we are making progress. It is an attempt to avoid arguing over the moral compasses of others.

[hunniebun]

I am a firm believer in donating to charity, but everyone is different and that is the thing about charity. It is a gift, given freely. If it is a requirement...it would be called tax.

I live in Canada where we have massive taxes and huge safety net...but I still donate to the causes that I believe in especially ones for children, who are at the mercy of their parents poor decisions in life. 
I regularly donate to our local food bank and these are the two stats that haunt me.
Approximately 45% of our clients are children
We feed nearly 27,000 children each month. Thirteen years ago, that number stood at 5,500 children.

I think is a complete disgrace that we live in a country where people throw out millions of pounds of food, we have welfare, children tax credits, milk programs etc...yet there are 27000 children in the province that go to bed with an empty stomach.  Or that babies get horrible diaper rashes because their parents can't (or won't) afford diapers to change their diapers as often as they should. 

So for me...I donate anywhere from 1-2 thousand dollars a year for charities that directly help children (I like Mercy ships too!). Could I pay off my mortgage faster? Or save more?  Likely  (however, in Canada charitable giving is tax deductible and you end up getting a hefty amount back) but for me...I feel this is something I need to do now, even if it means working longer and being away from my own kids more.  At least I know they are well fed, cared for and safe which is more than I can say for 27000 of kids on our community. 

[Fishingmn]

Nice thread Nice. I'm totally board with you by the way. Personally, I feel it's imperative to my moral and ethical being to give to others. Personally, I think for the most part it's greed that is really the root cause of not giving.

And you can make perfectly fine headway toward your financial goals by doing both. We have always given 10% of our after tax income to charity and still have amassed plenty of wealth that will allow us to FIRE next year in our early 50's at a spending level that is 3-4x what MMM spends. All that while working for mega-corp as a salesperson who never managed people.

I don't get the argument that you'll give when you FIRE. The time to give is when you have income coming in. If you can convince yourself not to give now I'm guessing that you'll convince yourself later not to give too. If anything I plan to give less in retirement as I won't be having nearly as much earned income.

We used to give a lot to church but haven't found a new church since moving in the past 4 years. There are plenty of other great causes we have found that are local and overcome the issue of large charity management.

- The local foodshelf is a perfect place. MIL works there part-time so we have first hand view of how 98% of our money goes straight to buying food that helps people directly avoid hunger.
- We give to a local adoption agency that helps place tough to place older children in MN - where we adopted our son 8 years ago
- We give to a small church run group that has opened a home in Kenya where we directly see 9 teenage girls and their babies learn skills and get education that wouldn't normally be available. Almost 100% of the money is spent in Kenya as we know the woman who runs the place.

I feel that greed at the end of year when I'm sending out money but I know first hand because of the local charities how much it does really help.

[cautiouslyunconventional]

I see some people mentioning ways of evaluating charities, like % of donations spent on administration costs. Have any of you ever tried Givewell.org? It's a project to find the charities that save the most lives per amount donated. Their values are also pretty similar to MMMers approach to their own lives, in some ways - getting the most benefit possible on a small budget.

[GetItRight]

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.

A "grown-up" does not resort to an ad hominem. If you disagree with the philosophy and thoughts others have expressed then it would be most productive to dispute the philosophy or argument rather than imply libertarians are children. Attacking someone who thinks differently and stating your opinion does not make a very good argument.

Philosophically let's at least be consistent. Let's suppose for a moment that taxes are not theft, but rather a responsibility. Would you agree that an individual approaching you on the street and demanding money is also not theft and is a responsibility to pay? What about two strangers? A hundred? A thousand? Why or why not?

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.

You state that government perpetually gives money to people, with no data or analysis, and conclude government is alleviating poverty. If we ignore that gaping hole in the middle and no data to support government actually alleviating poverty then it seems to follow that the answer to poverty is for government to do more heavy lifting and give everyone within its jurisdiction EBT cards and section 8 housing. Then we can all be retired and not be in poverty. Would you agree with that?

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.

More opinions and claims that government is alleviating poverty, with nothing at all to support it. Could you provide some theories, explanations, or data to support your claims?

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?

Agreed, the charities I have donated to in the past, and once FI may consider donating to again are attempting to decrease the size and scope of government, lower taxes, increase freedom. I would wager someone who donates to charities attempting to increase the size and scope of the government, increase taxes, and increase the police state would not see that as a worthwhile cause.

[Eric]

Nice thread Nice. I'm totally board with you by the way. Personally, I feel it's imperative to my moral and ethical being to give to others. Personally, I think for the most part it's greed that is really the root cause of not giving.

I don't get the argument that you'll give when you FIRE. The time to give is when you have income coming in. If you can convince yourself not to give now I'm guessing that you'll convince yourself later not to give too. If anything I plan to give less in retirement as I won't be having nearly as much earned income.

So less greedy now, but more greedy later is morally better than the reverse.  It's amazing the things you learn around here...

[NICE!]

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?

Great questions. No, any charity is not good enough. That's why I said to do your research. I personally feel that food, water, and health are the key issues with environment closely behind those. I'd also throw stopping oppression in there, too. But I do realize that it is better to have someone highly motivated about something because they'll give more of their time, money, and effort. So if you're a doctor and really care about vaccines, go work for MSF and give them a shit ton of money. You'll probably do a better job of that than if you donate to Catholic Charities.

Your other questions are exactly what I struggle with in my own life - how much is enough, given the massive luck I had to be born where I was, when I was, and to whom I was. Right now my # is 10% and it goes to a mixture of charities that I find to be effecient and doing great work, but I'm not satisfied with this. I don't know if I'm giving enough or if I should cut my list of charities down so I can have a greater effect on a bigger problem. What do you think?

I give fairly modestly (certainly less than 5%) now. 

The title is based upon people who "skip" charity. You're clearly not doing that. Also, you worked for nonprofits.

Also, while your anecdotal experience is valuable, you know that not all nonprofits work the way that you saw. Furthermore, some level of waste is inevitable, as it is in our personal budgets.

I'm not a libertarian (I'm a grown-up)   

You may be a grown-up, but that's a childish comment. There's no need to derail this thread with politics, though.

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

Please clean up your mess or we'll have to call the mods. Call me bullshit? Fantastic.

Read the damn thread. My ideas have been pretty clear for about the last 50 posts.

Also, you're straight up wrong about your other point. Several (more than 5) people have said they're reconsidering their approach on this matter. I had a long discussion with Lyssa and now understand her ideas a bit better.

[MidwestBiker]

Read the damn thread. My ideas have been pretty clear for about the last 50 posts.

Also, you're straight up wrong about your other point. Several (more than 5) people have said they're reconsidering their approach on this matter. I had a long discussion with Lyssa and now understand her ideas a bit better.

Still no details. Just a report that you think you are having some success proselytizing.

I'd be less inclined to think this is all sanctimonious BS if you posted something like "Why am I so judgmental?" or "Is charitable giving "Mustache-ian" (ick) or "How do you to grow a mustache and be charitable at the same time? Here's what I do:" But, instead of shedding light on a subject, we get a screed.

[kiwi]

I'm not going to address any of the points on animal vs human charity, how much one should give, before or after FIRE, etc.

However, I'll add one point.

I've just started work at a large, well-funded "save the world" nonprofit, been here 3 weeks. This is a non-profit that has a very good reputation.

I'm appalled. The amount of waste at this particular non-profit is MIND BOGGLING!  They have 10 people to do the work of 1, with the accompanying turf wars, duplication of effort, etc.

I will never, ever give to a non-profit again without having direct, recent, first-hand experience with them. Marketing materials/reputation are not to be trusted.

It is not ANYWHERE near as easy as some people seem to think, to actually do good by giving money to charities.

[NICE!]

Read the damn thread. My ideas have been pretty clear for about the last 50 posts.

Also, you're straight up wrong about your other point. Several (more than 5) people have said they're reconsidering their approach on this matter. I had a long discussion with Lyssa and now understand her ideas a bit better.

Still no details. Just a report that you think you are having some success proselytizing.

I'd be less inclined to think this is all sanctimonious BS if you posted something like "Why am I so judgmental?" or "Is charitable giving "Mustache-ian" (ick) or "How do you to grow a mustache and be charitable at the same time? Here's what I do:" But, instead of shedding light on a subject, we get a screed.

You called me BS. That is a direct insult and is not allowed here. Again, clean up your mess before someone else has to do it.

Hi, I'm new here (13 posts) and I'm already calling people names. Nice to meet you guys!

What do you want from me? An itemized list of which organizations receive my money? Do you need to know how much they get? How exactly will this affect your actions in this thread? Because I'm thinking that even if I provide it, it won't do anything for you. I also don't think it really adds to the discussion.

This post highlights the anti-Mustachian nature of allocating a percentage of your income to a particular spending goal, as explained in my earlier post: http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/why-do-many-mmmers-skip-charity/msg557383/#msg557383


In retirement, you might have less income than your working years (i.e. less of your available capital shows on your tax return), but that doesn't mean you have less money; in fact, you'll probably have considerably more money.

Instead of donating $20,000 per year to charity during your 10 year working career, if you saved that for retirement, then at the start of your retirement you would have $276,328 to give away during retirement (assuming 7% return per year), and it will likely go considerably up over the decades.

That $276,328 might not show up as income on your tax return each year in retirement, but that doesn't mean it's monopoly money. It's still very real money, available to allocate to whatever you want.

The idea that money had better damn well be spent now or else it will evaporate in the future is fundamentally inconsistent with pretty much everything on this website.

You keep saying this but fail to answer the following points:

1) People need help now. Are you a pure utilitarian that values raw #s later over smaller #s now, knowing full well we are talking about human lives?
2) You don't know the future. What if your $100 now helps cure Alzheimer's a day sooner? $1000 won't mean anything later for Alzheimer's if it is cured.
3) You don't know the future. What if your money disappears? What if it is confiscated for some reason? What if you lose it in a divorce? What if you die before you set up your Will to give the money away?

[NICE!]

The content of your Original Post is BS. No name-calling here.

Not only is that unhelpful, it is flat-out wrong. Enough people thought it was good enough to leave thoughtful replies and engage in substantive discussion. You're in the minority and looking extremely suspicious with your low post count.

At any rate, I'll PM you what you want the second you drop this language and clean up the mess you left. Posting it in the thread itself would turn it into an individualized focus on my giving, as opposed to the wider lens we have right now.

PS this...

Still no details. Just a report that you think you are having some success proselytizing.

I'd be less inclined to think this is all sanctimonious BS if you posted something like "Why am I so judgmental?" or "Is charitable giving "Mustache-ian" (ick) or "How do you to grow a mustache and be charitable at the same time? Here's what I do:" But, instead of shedding light on a subject, we get a screed.

...is absolutely name-calling.

Evidence that this is an effective thread is in my PM Inbox. Here's a sample:
"I'm sort-of a follower of both MMM and the effective altruism movement...They're both things that I got into because of realizing I had more earning potential than I needed, but the two ideas are in conflict for the same resources (ie money)...I hadn't realized that this was something that other people from MMM were thinking about before seeing your thread. I guess I'm just making an introduction here, since I was wondering if you could help me figure out what to do about this, or where to go for advice."

[retired?]

This has been discussed before and less than a few years ago since I found MMM about 9 months ago.  I'll give the same sort of response.  I give to causes that I consider worthwhile (von Mises Institute, Wounded Warrior, etc.), but give very little $$ to charities with a general purpose of helping the poor.

The reason is that, via federal taxes, I "give" (read taken forcibly by threat of incarceration ; ) ) quite a bit to the needy.

I don't feel any guilt about spending the money I earned in the way I choose.  I don't understand the "give back" mentality, i.e. that it is an obligation of those who have succeeded.  I feel I earned what I have.  Other than having the good luck to be born in a Western country, the rest has come from work and playing within the system.

[Eric]

You keep saying this but fail to answer the following points:

1) People need help now. Are you a pure utilitarian that values raw #s later over smaller #s now, knowing full well we are talking about human lives?
2) You don't know the future. What if your $100 now helps cure Alzheimer's a day sooner? $1000 won't mean anything later for Alzheimer's if it is cured.
3) You don't know the future. What if your money disappears? What if it is confiscated for some reason? What if you lose it in a divorce? What if you die before you set up your Will to give the money away?

Come on dude, this is silly.  Of course people need help now.  Of course people will need help in the future.  Don't worry, there will be devastating diseases that need cures in the future too.

[NICE!]

...

It seems to me that the arguments in this thread are really all rooted in faux moral superiority and not in logic.

I addressed the percent system several times. Stop bringing it up, we've already agreed that it isn't sufficient.

Again, the arguments in "The Life You Save" are pretty effective at dispelling your math. It seems to me that you are very much a utilitarian. I find the philosophy to be wholly insufficient since it turns human lives into numbers. They're not just numbers. You can't math this problem away.

But I understand if you are a utilitarian. Own it if you are.

And no, #1 and #2 do exactly the opposite of what you're saying in my view, which is why I think you're pretty pure in your utilitarianism.

Come on dude, this is silly.  Of course people need help now.  Of course people will need help in the future.  Don't worry, there will be devastating diseases that need cures in the future too.

Why is this "silly"? Do the people now matter less than those who exist later? Just because there will be more people who need help later?

Are you willing to push the fat man onto the train tracks in the trolley problem to save the 5 children?

[MidwestBiker]

Just post it. Or PM it. Or call the Feds. It's up to you. I read the thread and responded as I saw fit and in line with the tone of many posts here. And by the way, did you say I smell like a troll?

[Tabaxus]

...

It seems to me that the arguments in this thread are really all rooted in faux moral superiority and not in logic.

I addressed the percent system several times. Stop bringing it up, we've already agreed that it isn't sufficient.

Again, the arguments in "The Life You Save" are pretty effective at dispelling your math. It seems to me that you are very much a utilitarian. I find the philosophy to be wholly insufficient since it turns human lives into numbers. They're not just numbers. You can't math this problem away.

But I understand if you are a utilitarian. Own it if you are.

And no, #1 and #2 do exactly the opposite of what you're saying in my view, which is why I think you're pretty pure in your utilitarianism.

Charitable need is a very complicated math problem.  There is nothing that needs to be "owned" about recognizing that fact.  Your inability to see that is a bit surprising.

Take an extreme.  If humanity could permanently end all suffering by taking all money that would otherwise go to charity for 100 years and investing it in a utopia machine, that would be the right thing to do.  It would suck for all of the additional people made to suffer in the interim by lack of charity, but the overall outcome is much better.  By how long would you delay the utopia machine by diverting resources from it to current charitable endeavors, keeping in mind that the current endeavors cannot address all suffering in the interim?

Your chiding people for being "utilitarian" is a less extreme scenario of the same thought experiment. 

[arebelspy]

MOD NOTE: Multiple different posts in this thread have been reported by multiple different people.

I'm going to leave it open for now, as there's perhaps a little productive discussion left to have, but know that it is close to getting locked, so feel free to say what you'd like to say that is on topic and within the rules now.

If you have a direct issue with someone, take it up over PMs.

And note that just because you don't like a post or someone's tone doesn't make it a personal attack, but please try to be kind and respectful towards each other, even when you disagree.

[MayDay]

The "people need help now!" thing is such BS to me.  Yah, they need it now.  And they needed it 20 years ago.  And they'll still need it in 20 more years.  It doesn't really matter if I give 10% or even 100% right now.  Kids will still go hungry and people will still starve.  If I wait 40 years and give half of whatever is left in my accounts when I die, there will be plenty of hungry and dying people to help then.  Either way, my money will help someone but not everyone and it certainly won't solve the problem completely so that no charity is needed in 20 or 40 years. 

I also agree with the PP who mentioned making a difference through lifestyle choices (consuming less, etc) I think that is a good point.  I would argue that simply living a low consumption lifestyle makes a huge difference in the number of people you are exploiting worldwide.  I would rather everyone make those choices then spend a lot on stuff but also give to charities.  I also make a lot of "charitable" purchases- I buy to support farms that farm sustainably, spending more but helping the environment and avoiding exploiting Mexican farm workers. 

Does that mean I do or don't give to charities?  If I bought grocery store food but donated money to far workers rights charities does that count as charitable giving?  But if I instead buy ethically produced food, I am now not donating to charity? 

For the me the bottom line is that we all make millions of life choices for a variety of reasons.  Whether or not someone has a charity line item in their budget seems like the least concerning of all the value-based decisions that each of us makes.  I would much rather see us all think about each purchase and each behavioral decision (ie getting in a car and driving somewhere) and make human, animal, and environmentally focused choices, then to spend willy nilly and then give a chunk of money to charities that clean up our spending messes around the world. 

[arebelspy]

Are you willing to push the fat man onto the train tracks in the trolley problem to save the 5 children?

This is an interesting question you should start a separate off topic conversation on (with a link in the OP to the little multiple choice problems that take you through the trolley problem so we're all on the same page).

My answer: I would, but I wouldn't be morally obligated to.

[MayDay]

Are you willing to push the fat man onto the train tracks in the trolley problem to save the 5 children?

This is an interesting question you should start a separate off topic conversation on (with a link in the OP to the little multiple choice problems that take you through the trolley problem so we're all on the same page).

My answer: I would, but I wouldn't be morally obligated to.

I watched an Ebola documentary that had this exact example.  A hospital has a new mother die, and the newborn baby was left with no care providers.  The choice was leave the baby to die, or take care of it in the nurses and doctor's sleeping quarters. 

They took care of it, it ended up having Ebola, and all the nurses and doctors at that hospital died.  Since Ebola nurses and doctors aren't exactly in strong supply, the hospital was closed, and countless other people then did not have access to medical care. 

So what should they have done?  I would argue they should have left the baby to die, as horrible as the choice would be. 

[savedough]

I've read through this thread, but have not interest in making a moral statement.    I did want to add one comment.

One of the main reasons we donate to charity and volunteer time is that this is the example we want to set for our kids - outward focus on the needs of others.   In my opinion, this is one of the best ways to walk the walk AND talk the talk for the values we are hoping to instill in our children.   I don't think it is the only way - showing great care for possessions, reducing waste, being conscious of your use of resources, etc, are also effective ways.  This is one spoke in the wheel, but a very effective one.

[Eric]

Come on dude, this is silly.  Of course people need help now.  Of course people will need help in the future.  Don't worry, there will be devastating diseases that need cures in the future too.

Why is this "silly"? Do the people now matter less than those who exist later? Just because there will be more people who need help later?

Are you willing to push the fat man onto the train tracks in the trolley problem to save the 5 children?

It's silly because you've decided that any viewpoint except your own is invalid.  You're appealing to emotion with questions that have nothing to do with the subject at hand. 

What if [hypothetical scenario] shows this was a bad idea?  Oh yeah, well what if [hypothetical scenario] shows that it's a great idea?  It's pointless.

Look, it's obvious that you're passionate about this.  And that's great.  But you're so wrapped up in this at the moment that you've decided that your viewpoint is the only correct one.  You choose now as the time to give.  I'm choosing later.  I'm doing so under the assumption that it will provide more good.  If that doesn't happen because of some unlikely scenario, then so be it.

[NICE!]

Look, it's obvious that you're passionate about this.  And that's great.  But you're so wrapped up in this at the moment that you've decided that your viewpoint is the only correct one.  You choose now as the time to give.  I'm choosing later.  I'm doing so under the assumption that it will provide more good.  If that doesn't happen because of some unlikely scenario, then so be it.

I disagree with your assessment because you ignored my point about utility. That was the crux of my response. That isn't emotion, it is philosophy.

[justajane]

I'm not going to address any of the points on animal vs human charity, how much one should give, before or after FIRE, etc.

However, I'll add one point.

I've just started work at a large, well-funded "save the world" nonprofit, been here 3 weeks. This is a non-profit that has a very good reputation.

I'm appalled. The amount of waste at this particular non-profit is MIND BOGGLING!  They have 10 people to do the work of 1, with the accompanying turf wars, duplication of effort, etc.

I will never, ever give to a non-profit again without having direct, recent, first-hand experience with them. Marketing materials/reputation are not to be trusted.

It is not ANYWHERE near as easy as some people seem to think, to actually do good by giving money to charities.

This is the type of inside information that gives me pause sometimes and makes me not want to donate. For this reason, I often give to charities nearby that are run mostly by volunteers.

[arebelspy]

Look, it's obvious that you're passionate about this.  And that's great.  But you're so wrapped up in this at the moment that you've decided that your viewpoint is the only correct one.  You choose now as the time to give.  I'm choosing later.  I'm doing so under the assumption that it will provide more good.  If that doesn't happen because of some unlikely scenario, then so be it.

I disagree with your assessment because you ignored my point about utility. That was the crux of my response. That isn't emotion, it is philosophy.

I think Eric's point was you seem to have decided that the utility of giving now > utility of giving later, and that's not necessarily a viewpoint everyone shares.

If it's about utility, it's not necessarily obvious whether giving now or later has more utility (giving now helps people now, giving later gives it time to compound first - which is better?).

[sheepstache]

The only difference is that one is voluntary and one is not. But that's irrelevant to the amount of good that is done. If Congress passed a law requiring 10% of gross salary to go to the same charities that you donate to now, would you start donating 10% on top of that, or would that satisfy your charitable requirement?

This, to me, is the key point. People in some European countries have very high tax burdens to support their social safety net. Other countries give a lot to foreign aid. Do they still have to pay 10% of their income to charity on top of that? Shouldn't, therefore, Americans whose government is much less charitable, have to pay 30% of their own income to charity? This is entirely emotion-based and not based on the actual good being done. That's why I don't understand putting down non-givers for rationalizing their impulses. The charitable ones here clearly just have some impulse to give and are coming up with reasons to justify it, so rationalizing by itself isn't a dirty word.

I think we need split conversations about 1. charity as doing practical good, and 2. voluntary charity as a spiritual exercise.

I fully appreciate the importance of #2, but I would discuss it differently than #1.

[retired?]

Look, it's obvious that you're passionate about this.  And that's great.  But you're so wrapped up in this at the moment that you've decided that your viewpoint is the only correct one.  You choose now as the time to give.  I'm choosing later.  I'm doing so under the assumption that it will provide more good.  If that doesn't happen because of some unlikely scenario, then so be it.

I disagree with your assessment because you ignored my point about utility. That was the crux of my response. That isn't emotion, it is philosophy.

Eric is choosing to maximize his own utility (in the econ sense).....that's the beautiful thing about America (and a few other places) each is allowed and encouraged to maximize their own utility, which may or may not include maximizing society's utility.

[NICE!]

I think Eric's point was you seem to have decided that the utility of giving now > utility of giving later, and that's not necessarily a viewpoint everyone shares.

If it's about utility, it's not necessarily obvious whether giving now or later has more utility (giving now helps people now, giving later gives it time to compound first - which is better?).

I'm not talking about utility, because I'm not a consequentialist. I think the means matter more than the results, although I do believe results are important.

Also, I rejected the emotion point because it a) didn't address the point on utility and b) wasn't helpful.

Eric is choosing to maximize his own utility (in the econ sense).....that's the beautiful thing about America (and a few other places) each is allowed and encouraged to maximize their own utility, which may or may not include maximizing society's utility.

Agreed!

1. charity as doing practical good, and 2. voluntary charity as a spiritual exercise.

I fully appreciate the importance of #2, but I would discuss it differently than #1.

My inquiry leans towards #1, while wanting to normatively discuss what we should do, given our position of wealth in both a global and historical context.

[arebelspy]

I think Eric's point was you seem to have decided that the utility of giving now > utility of giving later, and that's not necessarily a viewpoint everyone shares.

If it's about utility, it's not necessarily obvious whether giving now or later has more utility (giving now helps people now, giving later gives it time to compound first - which is better?).

I'm not talking about utility, because I'm not a consequentialist. I think the means matter more than the results, although I do believe results are important.

I believe I missed your point then.

I'm not a utilitarian either, but that also doesn't mean I have settled the question of give now or later (or both).

[Matthew]

Nice! - thanks for starting this discussion and contributing so much.  It's one of the best threads I have followed.  A couple questions/points to add that I haven't seen yet:

1) Do we agree with the premise of the original question?  Do many MMMers skip charity? I get the impression that most people here are pretty generous and concerned.

2) MMMers seem to covet time more than money, and see money as a way to free up more time.  I expect (hope) a lot of that time is used for charity.

3) Generous giving of time and money has a profound positive effect on both giver and recipient.  As wealthy, intelligent, free people we have incredible opportunities for significant impact at a shockingly low cost.

4) I have come to see charitable giving as an essential investment vehicle in a balanced portfolio.  The returns are difficult to quantify and track, but I'm comfortable with that.

Thanks for the input, everyone.

[nobody123]

Just read through all of the posts.  Lots of interesting viewpoints.

Personally, my family doesn't give a huge amount to charity.  My wife volunteers a decent amount of her time to our children's school.  I am of the "charity begins at home" mindset -- I am responsible to provide for my family and ensure that they become / remain productive members of society, not requiring charity in the future.  Keeping the vast majority of my discretionary income within my control to ensure that we do not become burdens to society is probably the best thing I can do for society.  I'm worrying about us so society doesn't have to expend effort or resources doing so, allowing the social safety net to help those that need it for their survival. 

If there comes a time in the distant future when my kids are out of college and I have adequate financial reserves to give to those less fortunate, I may choose to do that.  Maybe I'll choose to withdraw all of the funds and buy a big ecological disaster of a yacht and spend my time boating around the Caribbean spearfishing endangered species and laughing at refugees on rafts while sipping Dom Perignon.  What I find fascinating is that some folks in this thread find me morally reprehensible for either of those choices, because I am not giving $X right this second to their cause du jour.

I understand that it is a bad thing that there is suffering in the world.  There always has been, and always will be.  If I had the capacity to end it and chose not to, that would be morally wrong.  I will not, however, apologize for taking advantage of the opportunities that my so-called "privilege" affords me to better the lives of my children.

[NICE!]

Nice! - thanks for starting this discussion and contributing so much.  It's one of the best threads I have followed.  A couple questions/points to add that I haven't seen yet:

1) Do we agree with the premise of the original question?  Do many MMMers skip charity? I get the impression that most people here are pretty generous and concerned.

2) MMMers seem to covet time more than money, and see money as a way to free up more time.  I expect (hope) a lot of that time is used for charity.

3) Generous giving of time and money has a profound positive effect on both giver and recipient.  As wealthy, intelligent, free people we have incredible opportunities for significant impact at a shockingly low cost.

4) I have come to see charitable giving as an essential investment vehicle in a balanced portfolio.  The returns are difficult to quantify and track, but I'm comfortable with that.

Thanks for the input, everyone.

No shit? Thanks, Matthew. It is nice to hear that from you (as well as several others in the thread, including via PM). It is in stark contrast to the discussion above. I realize that I brought some of that upon myself and will henceforth work to check my tone.

1) Many might've been a bad term. I was basing it on the various case studies & journals I've seen. Even the people who 'disagree' in this thread generally give some time and/or money to charitable efforts.
3-4) Agreed.

Personally, my family don't give a huge amount to charity.  My wife volunteers a decent amount of her time to our children's school.  I am of the "charity begins at home" mindset -- I am responsible to provide for my family and ensure that they become / remain productive members of society, not requiring charity in the future.  Keeping the vast majority of my discretionary income within my control to ensure that we do not become burdens to society is probably the best thing I can do for society.  I'm worrying about us so society doesn't have to expend effort or resources doing so, allowing the social safety net to help those that need it for their survival. 

If there comes a time in the distant future when my kids are out of college and I have adequate financial reserves to give to those less fortunate, I may choose to do that.  Maybe I'll choose to withdraw all of the funds and buy a big ecological disaster of a yacht and spend my time boating around the Caribbean spearfishing endangered species and laughing at refugees on rafts while sipping Dom Perignon.  What I find fascinating is that some folks in this thread find me morally reprehensible for either of those choices, because I am not giving $X right this second to their cause du jour.

I understand that it is a bad thing that there is suffering in the world.  There always has been, and always will be.  If I had the capacity to end it and chose not to, that would be morally wrong.  I will not, however, apologize for taking advantage of the opportunities that my so-called "privilege" affords me to better the lives of my children.

I also agree that you need to have your family's act together first. If possible, you don't want to create people who need the charity of others.

Your wife volunteering at your child's school is charity! I have zero problem with people deriving hard benefits from charity. Just because you do it primarily for your child doesn't mean the other kids don't benefit. You're helping more than just your family there.

I do think the boat choice could be problematic.

My primary question is, just like with saving, can you do more? Does your spending, saving, and giving match your priorities and the need that is out there? Can you squeeze another $10 out for a good organization doing X work? What's the right amount? As I said, I roll with about 10% but I am unconvinced it is enough. Also, as Cathy pointed out, there are many problems with % based solutions. I'm seriously torn on this issue to the point that I wonder whether I should live like a pauper to devote more of my time and money to charitable efforts.
 

[retired?]

This brings up a question......do people budget for charity?  I expect religious people why regularly give X% to their church/org plan for this expense, but I'll consider that a membership fee, i.e. to keep the org up and running.

For general cash donations, do people budget for it while working and include it in their FIRE calc?  The reason I ask is that it is inconceivable to me for one to delay retirement so they can donate.  Those extra years would then truly be working for the sole benefit of someone else.

[NICE!]

This brings up a question......do people budget for charity?  I expect religious people why regularly give X% to their church/org plan for this expense, but I'll consider that a membership fee, i.e. to keep the org up and running.

For general cash donations, do people budget for it while working and include it in their FIRE calc?  The reason I ask is that it is inconceivable to me for one to delay retirement so they can donate.  Those extra years would then truly be working for the sole benefit of someone else.

#1, to a certain extent it is a membership fee. A good church does give to the poor and other causes, though. It isn't the most effecient way to do it, but it isn't purely a membership fee.

#2, I do include my charitable contributions in my retirement calculations. Yes, it delays my FIRE date. Yes, by looking at it that way, I will work for the sole benefit of someone else towards the end of my working career. I don't see how this is a problem when we've won the genetic & historical lottery (generally speaking, of course some people here did not win it). It also won't be a huge deal in my family because DW probably won't quit working for a long time.

[ChrisLansing]

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.

A "grown-up" does not resort to an ad hominem. If you disagree with the philosophy and thoughts others have expressed then it would be most productive to dispute the philosophy or argument rather than imply libertarians are children. Attacking someone who thinks differently and stating your opinion does not make a very good argument.

Philosophically let's at least be consistent. Let's suppose for a moment that taxes are not theft, but rather a responsibility. Would you agree that an individual approaching you on the street and demanding money is also not theft and is a responsibility to pay? What about two strangers? A hundred? A thousand? Why or why not?

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.

You state that government perpetually gives money to people, with no data or analysis, and conclude government is alleviating poverty. If we ignore that gaping hole in the middle and no data to support government actually alleviating poverty then it seems to follow that the answer to poverty is for government to do more heavy lifting and give everyone within its jurisdiction EBT cards and section 8 housing. Then we can all be retired and not be in poverty. Would you agree with that?

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.

More opinions and claims that government is alleviating poverty, with nothing at all to support it. Could you provide some theories, explanations, or data to support your claims?

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?

Agreed, the charities I have donated to in the past, and once FI may consider donating to again are attempting to decrease the size and scope of government, lower taxes, increase freedom. I would wager someone who donates to charities attempting to increase the size and scope of the government, increase taxes, and increase the police state would not see that as a worthwhile cause.

I apologize for the ad hominiem.  It was a joke, but it obviously angered you.  I'm sorry.

As for the rest of the post, it's pretty basic that EBT/section 8 and other welfare programs are means tested for eligibility (otherwise I'd just let the govt pay for my housing and food despite making $60K a year.)   I would think then that govt. is, by definition, alleviating (not eliminating - perhaps mitigating is a better word?) poverty with these programs.     I see no reason to provide you with data to prove that means tested programs that provide for the poor are in fact helping the poor.     Perhaps I've missed something in your question?    Perhaps you are trying to imply that the govt programs are useless?     

As for individual panhandlers, no that is not theft.   Nor is it a responsibility or obligation.   

[nobody123]

My primary question is, just like with saving, can you do more? Does your spending, saving, and giving match your priorities and the need that is out there? Can you squeeze another $10 out for a good organization doing X work? What's the right amount? As I said, I roll with about 10% but I am unconvinced it is enough. Also, as Cathy pointed out, there are many problems with % based solutions. I'm seriously torn on this issue to the point that I wonder whether I should live like a pauper to devote more of my time and money to charitable efforts.

Of course we could all theoretically do more.  And until I see Bill Gates himself take the place of a child in the gutter of India rolling cigarettes on the dirt street so he *might* get to eat that night, even Mr. Gates could theoretically do more.  Bill Gates could end the suffering of that one child, but yet he doesn't.  Why is that?

I think it is because he realizes that even with the enormous wealth and influence at his disposal that could theoretically help thousands of people RIGHT NOW, his efforts are better spent raising funds and awareness for areas of concern that he thinks he can have a broad effect on, and that will ultimately help more than just the one child in the gutter, or the entire population of that specific gutter.  He realizes that he has the power to have a positive impact on large groups of underprivileged people around the world, and he is doing what he can to maximize that leverage.  On a smaller level, the "build a stache to donate later" folks are thinking along the same lines.

For most of us, we will never have that Gates level of resources at our disposal.  Maybe the scope of our 'charitable concern' will necessarily end with ourselves due to financial hardship.  Some of us have a "give till it hurts" mentality, some have a "you can have whatever is left when I'm dead" approach.  I won't say that either is better than the other.  I refuse to say that just because someone doesn't live as Mother Theresa did, they are a bad person.  Ultimately, charity is a personal choice and there is no one-size-fits-all approach that will guarantee you will sleep well at night.  Maybe, just looking out for yourself is all the charity that some people are capable of, as a result of the combination of physical / financial / psychological / emotional factors that led them to this moment in time.  I don't fault people for that.

[ChrisLansing]

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?

Great questions. No, any charity is not good enough. That's why I said to do your research. I personally feel that food, water, and health are the key issues with environment closely behind those. I'd also throw stopping oppression in there, too. But I do realize that it is better to have someone highly motivated about something because they'll give more of their time, money, and effort. So if you're a doctor and really care about vaccines, go work for MSF and give them a shit ton of money. You'll probably do a better job of that than if you donate to Catholic Charities.

Your other questions are exactly what I struggle with in my own life - how much is enough, given the massive luck I had to be born where I was, when I was, and to whom I was. Right now my # is 10% and it goes to a mixture of charities that I find to be effecient and doing great work, but I'm not satisfied with this. I don't know if I'm giving enough or if I should cut my list of charities down so I can have a greater effect on a bigger problem. What do you think?

I give fairly modestly (certainly less than 5%) now. 

The title is based upon people who "skip" charity. You're clearly not doing that. Also, you worked for nonprofits.

Also, while your anecdotal experience is valuable, you know that not all nonprofits work the way that you saw. Furthermore, some level of waste is inevitable, as it is in our personal budgets.

I'm not a libertarian (I'm a grown-up)   

You may be a grown-up, but that's a childish comment. There's no need to derail this thread with politics, though.

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

Please clean up your mess or we'll have to call the mods. Call me bullshit? Fantastic.

Read the damn thread. My ideas have been pretty clear for about the last 50 posts.

Also, you're straight up wrong about your other point. Several (more than 5) people have said they're reconsidering their approach on this matter. I had a long discussion with Lyssa and now understand her ideas a bit better.

One reason I brought up the relative importance of one charity compared to another is that I don't see how it can be avoided.    We've been avoiding it but should we?     Just as we could talk about where to find the best ROI we can talk about how to get the most bang for our charitable buck.  We can also ask about the risk or opportunity cost of giving to one charity versus another.     It's an allocation problem.   I'm not sure individual decision making is necessarily the right way to go.   Maybe a lot of you are giving generously but ineffectively -not ineffective in terms of administrative/program costs (We've hashed that point enough I think) but in terms of really having the greatest impact for the greatest good.    Maybe we should (attempt) to form a consensus as to what the single most pressing problem is and address it until it's solved?   Then move on to the next most pressing problem.      Then again, maybe problems can't be solved one at a time.    I don't know the answer.     


I don't have any definite answers, but it does strike me that giving to humans is more compelling than giving to the ASPCA (and I love dogs and cats, and most animals)   It might be argued that preventing global warming is more important than keeping a couple bag laddies from freezing to death tonight.  (Though we probably can't prevent global warming with any act taken tonight whereas we probably can save some people from freezing)  If we save the bag laddies and destroy the environment (at least for human habitation) have we done "good" ?      What is the most pressing need?    How can we decide the best place to put our money?   
The other reason I brought up the point is this - if we can't (or won't) decide that one charity is more worthwhile than another, then how can some of you decide that giving is better than not giving (beyond taxation) ?     

As an aside, someone else mentioned food banks, and I think that's something I'm willing to donate to out of pocket.    I'm going to look into which of the local food banks to give to.       

[NICE!]

I don't have any definite answers, but it does strike me that giving to humans is more compelling than giving to the ASPCA (and I love dogs and cats, and most animals)   It might be argued that preventing global warming is more important than keeping a couple bag laddies from freezing to death tonight.  (Though we probably can't prevent global warming with any act taken tonight whereas we probably can save some people from freezing)  If we save the bag laddies and destroy the environment (at least for human habitation) have we done "good" ?      What is the most pressing need?    How can we decide the best place to put our money?   
The other reason I brought up the point is this - if we can't (or won't) decide that one charity is more worthwhile than another, then how can some of you decide that giving is better than not giving (beyond taxation) ?     

As an aside, someone else mentioned food banks, and I think that's something I'm willing to donate to out of pocket.    I'm going to look into which of the local food banks to give to.       

This is actually something I've considered and there's an organization that picked out 4 (I think) initiatives/charities that provide the most impact in the areas of greatest need. The name is completely lost on me, but I think one of them was Deworm the World (or something like that).

nobody123, I don't think I need to live like a pauper and nor do you. I do think, like you, that we can do more. I think we should try since we can. Every little bit helps.

[Breaker]

For some reason the OP and others think that MMMers don't give to charity.  I'm not sure why.  Maybe because many don't list charity as a line item or in their case studies.  I prefer to think that they give as/and when they see fit, not on a schedule.  They may not have found the charity that they wish to support.


 Also, if you really have a hair on fire emergency debt situation, I think it is perfectly reasonable to take care of yourself first.  Else you may be the next in need of charity.

I know there were many years that I didn't feel that I had any money to give away.  Then there is the problem of figuring out which charity I want to support.  BTW, I give to completely different types of charities than the OP.  This is my choice, it's my money.  So even if I said I was giving 50% of my money to Charity, the OP would still find fault because I would not be giving to the things she values.

It is my belief that many of the wealthy give because of the tax breaks, so in effect I am supporting their donations.  Out and out supporting the Gov't. in making others lives easier is more palatable to me than this back door taking of my money.

I am setting up a trust for any money that I don't use in my lifetime to be divided between several charities.  Why don't I give more now?  I'm worried that I might need it and I don't have family to call upon if that is so. 

[Gin1984]

I don't have any definite answers, but it does strike me that giving to humans is more compelling than giving to the ASPCA (and I love dogs and cats, and most animals)   It might be argued that preventing global warming is more important than keeping a couple bag laddies from freezing to death tonight.  (Though we probably can't prevent global warming with any act taken tonight whereas we probably can save some people from freezing)  If we save the bag laddies and destroy the environment (at least for human habitation) have we done "good" ?      What is the most pressing need?    How can we decide the best place to put our money?   
The other reason I brought up the point is this - if we can't (or won't) decide that one charity is more worthwhile than another, then how can some of you decide that giving is better than not giving (beyond taxation) ?     

As an aside, someone else mentioned food banks, and I think that's something I'm willing to donate to out of pocket.    I'm going to look into which of the local food banks to give to.       

This is actually something I've considered and there's an organization that picked out 4 (I think) initiatives/charities that provide the most impact in the areas of greatest need. The name is completely lost on me, but I think one of them was Deworm the World (or something like that).

nobody123, I don't think I need to live like a pauper and nor do you. I do think, like you, that we can do more. I think we should try since we can. Every little bit helps.

You assume everyone can and that is not true.  Yes, the majority of people are on here to retire or gain financial independence, but people are in different stages of life.  I just lost my job, and the only reason we are breaking even is my husband's job, renting our upstairs and having a roommate.  It takes all of those to break even because my husband just started his job.  My responsibility is to make sure my daughter (and obviously myself and my husband) have our needs taken care of. 
Quite frankly nothing you said here encouraged me to donate anything.  I have charities that are near and dear to me and I will donate when I can afford to, but charity is up to the person and this thread won't benefit anyone.

[netskyblue]

Why don't I give to charity?  Because I don't WANT to.  *I* worked for this money so *I* could enjoy the benefit of it.  If others are too unfortunate to be able to earn their own money, well, that's survival of the fittest.  If that makes me a bad person, so be it.

[NICE!]

You assume everyone can and that is not true.

No I don't. I don't blame you for not reading this whole thread since that'd be a massive timesink, but you clearly didn't read all that I said.

My responsibility is to make sure my daughter (and obviously myself and my husband) have our needs taken care of.

Yes it is!

Quite frankly nothing you said here encouraged me to donate anything.

That's unfortunate and I'm sorry. I'm also not the only one in here.

I have charities that are near and dear to me and I will donate when I can afford to, but charity is up to the person and this thread won't benefit anyone.

Again, I don't blame you for not reading this massive thread but NO. Just NO. There's at least one poster per page saying they're going to reconsider what they're doing to try to give more. There's also a PM in my inbox along these lines.

So no. Don't come at me like that when you're straight up wrong. Even if there weren't a single post validating this thread, we've had a ton of discussion, I understand Lyssa's POV better, and you have no idea what those thousands of page views have done to everyone other than you who has read this thread.

Why don't I give to charity?  Because I don't WANT to.  *I* worked for this money so *I* could enjoy the benefit of it.  If others are too unfortunate to be able to earn their own money, well, that's survival of the fittest.  If that makes me a bad person, so be it.

Hey, fuck all those people who were born blind, right? Or those assholes living under oppressive dictators? Or those fuckwits that die from malaria while pregnant? Those people suck, they should die because Darwinism.

But at least you're honest! I think more than a few people actually think this way but don't have the guts to own up to it.

[MayDay]

Well what it's done to me is make me think you are pushy and rude.

[NICE!]

Well what it's done to me is make me think you are pushy and rude.

That's nice. Do you have anything constructive to add, other than name-calling?

And for the record, since I didn't reply to your last post, I agree that there are tons of life choices that mean much more than a charity line item. I share your concern for the environment, reducing consumption, and other things MMMers tend to prioritize.

[Gin1984]

You assume everyone can and that is not true.

No I don't. I don't blame you for not reading this whole thread since that'd be a massive timesink, but you clearly didn't read all that I said.

My responsibility is to make sure my daughter (and obviously myself and my husband) have our needs taken care of.

Yes it is!

Quite frankly nothing you said here encouraged me to donate anything.

That's unfortunate and I'm sorry. I'm also not the only one in here.

I have charities that are near and dear to me and I will donate when I can afford to, but charity is up to the person and this thread won't benefit anyone.

Again, I don't blame you for not reading this massive thread but NO. Just NO. There's at least one poster per page saying they're going to reconsider what they're doing to try to give more. There's also a PM in my inbox along these lines.

So no. Don't come at me like that when you're straight up wrong. Even if there weren't a single post validating this thread, we've had a ton of discussion, I understand Lyssa's POV better, and you have no idea what those thousands of page views have done to everyone other than you who has read this thread.

Why don't I give to charity?  Because I don't WANT to.  *I* worked for this money so *I* could enjoy the benefit of it.  If others are too unfortunate to be able to earn their own money, well, that's survival of the fittest.  If that makes me a bad person, so be it.

Hey, fuck all those people who were born blind, right? Or those assholes living under oppressive dictators? Or those fuckwits that die from malaria while pregnant? Those people suck, they should die because Darwinism.

But at least you're honest! I think more than a few people actually think this way but don't have the guts to own up to it.

Actually I did read the entire thread, most of it was like a train wreak, where you know it is bad but you just can't look away.  Yes there were a couple people on here that posted useful information, like Rural and her grant writing and the poster with the exercise app, but those posts could and probably would have come out over other threads that were not as rude as this one.  And frankly, if I did not have those charities I want to donate to, your behavior would have made me less likely to donate.  However, I am not going to harm others because of your rudeness.  You did say something along the lines of, "can't everyone donate $10/month".  I am not going to go through the thread to find the exact quote but I remember it because my response was no, I can't.  Your behavior was trollish.

[NICE!]

Actually I did read the entire thread, most of it was like a train wreak, where you know it is bad but you just can't look away.  Yes there were a couple people on here that posted useful information, like Rural and her grant writing and the poster with the exercise app, but those posts could and probably would have come out over other threads that were not as rude as this one.  And frankly, if I did not have those charities I want to donate to, your behavior would have made me less likely to donate.  However, I am not going to harm others because of your rudeness.  You did say something along the lines of, "can't everyone donate $10/month".  I am not going to go through the thread to find the exact quote but I remember it because my response was no, I can't.  Your behavior was trollish and not at all useful.

So some asshole on the Internet affects you to the extent that you might not give money to a charity? I don't buy it, you're an adult. If I can seriously have that sort of effect on you I'd recommend you take a break from the Internet. There are people wayyyyy worse.

And again with the name calling ("troll"). Nah, it was a success because of the aforementioned posts plus the other ones where people said they'd reconsider what they're doing. There are at least 5 of those. Also a PM in my inbox. Also 7k views. You didn't like the thread, that's fine. Don't go claiming it didn't work because it didn't work for you.

Finally, the quote on $10/month, that is clearly a comment regarding scalability based upon on your income/situation. Even people living in squalid conditions often help people out, usually with family members, close friends, or fellow villagers.

[KBecks2]

I have not read all the pages of the thread, but I appreciate the topic.  I want to look at charitable giving as part of what we do and do more than what we are doing now, both in time and money given.  I am surprised by how many people believe that paying taxes is equivalent to giving to charity -- in my mind they are not the same at all.  Government covers so little, and there is a wide world of people who would benefit from our generosity.

Anyway, I can control and change my behavior, and I was already thinking about that, how I can help make the world a better place, and not just for myself and my family.  Dave Ramsey says that you can live and give like no one else, but encourages giving all along the way because when you give, you will also receive.  It's a little obscure, but when you are giving, and involved with charity, your mindset may change, to be more generous and more caring to people and open to possibility, you may meet more people, etc. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think MMM has minimized charity for now but plans to give in his will.  Or at least that is the plan for now. I also hear many MMMers who mention that charity is more like a luxury that can be or even should be put off.    It is a good discussion to have and to reflect on as individuals.  (I think MMM has changed many people's lives, and for that I am thankful for his generosity to us!)

One thing I like about MMM is the environmental impact that the behaviors have.  But there are also many other ways we can make a positive difference in the world. 

[Turkey Leg]

NICE, I liked both the topic and the discussion that ensued (is ensuing). Thanks for posting it!!

[KBecks2]

I've read through this thread, but have not interest in making a moral statement.    I did want to add one comment.

One of the main reasons we donate to charity and volunteer time is that this is the example we want to set for our kids - outward focus on the needs of others.   In my opinion, this is one of the best ways to walk the walk AND talk the talk for the values we are hoping to instill in our children.   I don't think it is the only way - showing great care for possessions, reducing waste, being conscious of your use of resources, etc, are also effective ways.  This is one spoke in the wheel, but a very effective one.

Very well said! :)

[NICE!]

NICE, I liked both the topic and the discussion that ensued (is ensuing). Thanks for posting it!!

Thanks to you and KBecks2! This thread has been a success, whether or not some people realize it.