How do charitable donations fit into your finances?

[Taswegian]

Plus, as discussed in other threads, the push to major charitable giving seems to be a U.S. thing, since countries with higher tax rates and better safety nets means less need (or at least less perception of need) for charitable giving, plus less net income available for

I find this an interesting comment.  From reading the myriad threads about charitable giving, I don't get the sense that most people (here at least) are giving to people in need in the US.  I feel like people are donating to other things that are important to them (see RtW's abbreviated list a couple posts up for an example).

I think the poster meant that the whole concept of charitable giving is a US thing - at least the larger % discussed as opposed to only giving to US causes.
I have a question for the church people - I see a lot of people donating as much as 10% of their income, what does the church do with all this money - is it used to help the less fortunate?.

Not always. Much of it goes in keeping the (rented) doors open, some on salaries for the Pastor & staff. As a church we raise funds for other stuff as well (pigs for Vietnam being an example). The point for me is that money i give to my church isn't mine in the first place. Coming from a paradigm of assuming that God gives me what i need, i assume that he can figure out what i need and takes the 10% into account. What my church does with the money isn't as important to me as where i put my trust. YMMV.

[GuitarStv]

[quote author=Taswegian link=topic=35627.msg645726#msg645726
Not always. Much of it goes in keeping the (rented) doors open, some on salaries for the Pastor & staff. As a church we raise funds for other stuff as well (pigs for Vietnam being an example). The point for me is that money i give to my church isn't mine in the first place. Coming from a paradigm of assuming that God gives me what i need, i assume that he can figure out what i need and takes the 10% into account. What my church does with the money isn't as important to me as where i put my trust. YMMV.
[/quote]

There appears to be some logical slight of hand going on here.  If God will always give you what you need, why not donate 100% of your worldly goods?  And why do you assume that your church actually does what God wants?

[HazelStone]

I am reminded of a quote from one of FDR's advisors in the depths of the Depression:

"People don't eat in the long run. They eat every day." Most of us can well afford to kick in a few dollars here and there. There are lots of people hurting now. Giving $50 to the local food bank, Salvation Army, etc. isn't going to derail one's FI plans by much, but it will help a struggling household get through the last bit of the month.

I know you mean well, but I feel like you are forgetting what website we are on.  This IS the same website where it is advocated to stop buying coffees in order to retire faster.  Many people here are on the fast-track to retirement, which means cutting out all spending that is not absolutely necessary.  In my opinion, that includes donations.  If someone wants to still donate while trying to fast track their retirement, that is their decision, but it needs to be a calculated decision and not a hand-waving "isn't going to derail one's FI plans by much", because, well, it actually CAN offset ones FI plans by much depending on the particular persons income, expenses, and frequency and amount of donation.

Not to mention, there is a strong libertarian bent on here.  So yeah, very few people are going to be motivated by the idea of donating money to causes that help others.

Let's see...how much whining goes on around here about the US not having single-payer healthcare or similar? There are a few libertarians here, but I wouldn't call it a strong bent. Not by a long shot.  There is also plenty of discussion here about how much to weight long-term plans vs. living a little today. Similar can be argued on charitable giving. Time and talent counts as well as money. Or donate vegetables from your garden (you DO have a garden, yes? :P ) There are folks here who say they plan on building a charitable fund or plan on bequeathing a lot to charity once they are gone... and that's AWESOME... if they actually do it.

For those who say "I'll do it later," it can get put off and put off and put off some more. It's just human nature. Or possibly a convenient cop-out. And I do struggle with writing a (planned, but not very large) check to my charities of choice. I have my own security issues to deal with. I'm not arguing that people should tithe outright. I haven't the guts and I'll freely admit that. Charity is a spiritual/psychological discipline.

And if one claims to be libertarian, they would recognize the argument that safety nets should come from private charity rather than from the government.  I don't really think highly of FDR, but his advisor summed up the problem well. Read your history and you'll see how the pressure was starting to build in the 30's.

I should mention that I come from a religious tradition that has very clear things to say on helping the less fortunate. And if you are able to earn a good wage, save gobs of money, and pursue a great quality of life, the argument that one "can't afford to" throw a few bucks of help somewhere just doesn't fly in my eyes. It is, ultimately, a personal decision. I just pose the argument that we can all spare a few crumbs from our metaphorical tables for current charitable needs.

[NICE!]

There appears to be some logical slight of hand going on here.  If God will always give you what you need, why not donate 100% of your worldly goods?  And why do you assume that your church actually does what God wants?

Not everyone is called to be a monk.

[Villanelle]

DH and I plan to work long past FIRE numbers, in large part because we want to give.  I am 100% convinced that I can grow my money more effectively, and that when comparing $50 now to whatever I can grow that $50 to in a few decades, the latter wins, hands down.  Most of my professional life has been spent in non-profits, and that has only affirmed this view.

Sure, there is someone who needs $50 now, and I'm not helping him.  But if I give him the $50 now, then I am not helping three people who need an inflation adjusted $50 in 50 years.  Greatest good, greatest number.

And yes, that also means I don't need to be concerned with giving a bit too much now and coming up short in 40 years as a result.  So it does benefit me, but it also benefits the more people who get more help.  FDR may have said that people eat now and not in the long run.  But for the people my money feeds in 2070, that is "now". And three of them starving in 2070 bs one starving now, while a terrible decision to have to look closely at, is going to get my vote.

That's not to say I give nothing now.  We do have a few charities we support with our money (as well as our time).  But overall, we plan to grow all those donations we aren't making so we can do more good.  We have no children or other family members who don't have the ability to support themselves.  Our wills specify about 95% of our wealth goes to charity.  It's highly amusing to me that someone thinks that makes me a selfish asshole.  Ask the three people my $50 helps and the one person his $50 helps, and I'm pretty sure who would get more "asshole" vs. "generous" votes. 

[mak1277]

DH and I plan to work long past FIRE numbers, in large part because we want to give.  I am 100% convinced that I can grow my money more effectively, and that when comparing $50 now to whatever I can grow that $50 to in a few decades, the latter wins, hands down.  Most of my professional life has been spent in non-profits, and that has only affirmed this view.

Sure, there is someone who needs $50 now, and I'm not helping him.  But if I give him the $50 now, then I am not helping three people who need an inflation adjusted $50 in 50 years.  Greatest good, greatest number.

And yes, that also means I don't need to be concerned with giving a bit too much now and coming up short in 40 years as a result.  So it does benefit me, but it also benefits the more people who get more help.  FDR may have said that people eat now and not in the long run.  But for the people my money feeds in 2070, that is "now". And three of them starving in 2070 bs one starving now, while a terrible decision to have to look closely at, is going to get my vote.

That's not to say I give nothing now.  We do have a few charities we support with our money (as well as our time).  But overall, we plan to grow all those donations we aren't making so we can do more good.  We have no children or other family members who don't have the ability to support themselves.  Our wills specify about 95% of our wealth goes to charity.  It's highly amusing to me that someone thinks that makes me a selfish asshole.  Ask the three people my $50 helps and the one person his $50 helps, and I'm pretty sure who would get more "asshole" vs. "generous" votes.

I said people who don't donate to charity are selfish assholes...you just said you DO donate to charity (money and time)...therefore you don't qualify. 

[Taswegian]

[quote author=Taswegian link=topic=35627.msg645726#msg645726
Not always. Much of it goes in keeping the (rented) doors open, some on salaries for the Pastor & staff. As a church we raise funds for other stuff as well (pigs for Vietnam being an example). The point for me is that money i give to my church isn't mine in the first place. Coming from a paradigm of assuming that God gives me what i need, i assume that he can figure out what i need and takes the 10% into account. What my church does with the money isn't as important to me as where i put my trust. YMMV.

There appears to be some logical slight of hand going on here.  If God will always give you what you need, why not donate 100% of your worldly goods?  And why do you assume that your church actually does what God wants?
[/quote]

We probably need to sideline this its getting off op? There's semantics and nuances in what i said, but it comes back to what I need and trusting God to supply that. I respect the people at my church who manage the money, but they're human at the end of the day, therefore there is a non-zero chance of a stuff-up. I'm still going to go ahead as though God is in control and believe that He's capable of resolving it if it does go pear-shaped.

[Kris]

I am reminded of a quote from one of FDR's advisors in the depths of the Depression:

"People don't eat in the long run. They eat every day." Most of us can well afford to kick in a few dollars here and there. There are lots of people hurting now. Giving $50 to the local food bank, Salvation Army, etc. isn't going to derail one's FI plans by much, but it will help a struggling household get through the last bit of the month.

I know you mean well, but I feel like you are forgetting what website we are on.  This IS the same website where it is advocated to stop buying coffees in order to retire faster.  Many people here are on the fast-track to retirement, which means cutting out all spending that is not absolutely necessary.  In my opinion, that includes donations.  If someone wants to still donate while trying to fast track their retirement, that is their decision, but it needs to be a calculated decision and not a hand-waving "isn't going to derail one's FI plans by much", because, well, it actually CAN offset ones FI plans by much depending on the particular persons income, expenses, and frequency and amount of donation.

Not to mention, there is a strong libertarian bent on here.  So yeah, very few people are going to be motivated by the idea of donating money to causes that help others.

Let's see...how much whining goes on around here about the US not having single-payer healthcare or similar? There are a few libertarians here, but I wouldn't call it a strong bent. Not by a long shot.  There is also plenty of discussion here about how much to weight long-term plans vs. living a little today. Similar can be argued on charitable giving. Time and talent counts as well as money. Or donate vegetables from your garden (you DO have a garden, yes? :P ) There are folks here who say they plan on building a charitable fund or plan on bequeathing a lot to charity once they are gone... and that's AWESOME... if they actually do it.

For those who say "I'll do it later," it can get put off and put off and put off some more. It's just human nature. Or possibly a convenient cop-out. And I do struggle with writing a (planned, but not very large) check to my charities of choice. I have my own security issues to deal with. I'm not arguing that people should tithe outright. I haven't the guts and I'll freely admit that. Charity is a spiritual/psychological discipline.

And if one claims to be libertarian, they would recognize the argument that safety nets should come from private charity rather than from the government.  I don't really think highly of FDR, but his advisor summed up the problem well. Read your history and you'll see how the pressure was starting to build in the 30's.

I should mention that I come from a religious tradition that has very clear things to say on helping the less fortunate. And if you are able to earn a good wage, save gobs of money, and pursue a great quality of life, the argument that one "can't afford to" throw a few bucks of help somewhere just doesn't fly in my eyes. It is, ultimately, a personal decision. I just pose the argument that we can all spare a few crumbs from our metaphorical tables for current charitable needs.

How do you see that there isn't a strong libertarian bent here?  According to this poll, it's about 69%:

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/welcome-to-the-forum/political-leanings-of-mustachians/msg490128/?topicseen#msg490128

[Retired To Win]

Well, I consider myself a libertarian.  And I do donate.  Of course, it is to causes that are important to me and for which I can see a lot more getting accomplished by pooling my money with that of others.  For instance, property rights and free speech litigation, pet rescue and adoption, and land preservation just to name 3 examples of what I mean.  But it's true that I don't donate much to organizations targeting the "needy" (except for a Native American Indian school and a local church-based assistance fund).

Oh... and I give home page promotional space on my blog to causes/organizations I support.  Which is something IMHO that everyone with a blog could at least think of doing.  After all, it takes no cash money to do it.

[lr]

I donate out of recognition that I've been blessed with amazing opportunities that are denied to people with equal potential as me. To ignore injustice is to be complicit in it.

My donations have grown as my financial situation has gone from terrible to tolerable, to acceptable. Greater security lets me breathe and focus on the world outside of my household. As I get closer to FI, I'm planning to pivot my work to focus even more on causes dear to me, like education and basic services. I like what I do for a living, and hope my career will be more impactful in organizations that have trouble paying market rates. My idea of retirement involves working even harder than I do now, but with more autonomy.

I also think a true libertarian bent would encourage more charity, since the theory is that public policy should be privatized when possible. So libertarians should be the first people involved with donations for schools and charity hospitals for the poor.

[NICE!]

I also think a true libertarian bent would encourage more charity, since the theory is that public policy should be privatized when possible. So libertarians should be the first people involved with donations for schools and charity hospitals for the poor.

The difference is whether or not you're an objectivist (I'm not). Objectivists aren't fans of altruism. The source of most American libertarian philosophy comes from Ayn Rand, who was an objectivist.

[Syonyk]

There is a whole lot of non objectivist libertarian thought out there.

[NICE!]

There is a whole lot of non objectivist libertarian thought out there.

Of course there is, but Rand is pretty omnipresent. People are often implicitly applying objectivist thought without realizing it.

But this is a pretty major tangent from the OP.

[justajane]

We don't give more than $500 or so a year to our church, in large part because approximately 30% of the budget is benevolences, and we don't happen to agree with several of the charities they choose to give to. I haven't expressed my feelings because I know that the majority of members do agree with these charities. In particular, they give to a charity that provides counseling and support groups to homosexuals. I don't think it is so dramatic as trying to turn them straight or anything, but since I don't have any problem whatsoever with homosexuality, this does irk me. I figure the $500 we give goes to keep the lights on and a token bit for the pastors' salaries, etc.

I personally wish our church would get out of the external benevolence giving altogether, or at least dramatically lower it. We regularly get pleas that we are behind on our budget, and my first thought is very MMM - "Um, lower the budget." My heart sank last year when our church had an 11th hour windfall from one large gift. They were able to make the budget and then some. Instead of putting away the excess for next year, what did they do? They raised everything across the board 2%! Their justification was that the pastors and staff hadn't had a raise in three years. I was fine with them raising the staffs' salaries, but across the board to benevolences and missionaries as well? I did not agree with that at all. And sure enough this year we have already received multiple e-mails that we are in a significant deficit. And round and round we go.

Aside from the relatively small amount we give to the church, we donate to various secular charities, mostly medical, disaster relief, etc. For my third son's birthday (who is oblivious to material possessions anyway), in lieu of gifts at his birthday party next week, we set up a charitable donation page with an African malaria charity. We said we would match the donations, as well as apply for my husband's company match. So far only my MIL has donated. I will be somewhat disappointed if none of our friends take us up on the suggestion, but we will still give a sizable donation ourselves. I recognize that my children don't have to deal with so many of the things that children elsewhere in the world have to. It seems only right that we should acknowledge our privilege and how lucky we are to live in a country that has been able to eradicate malaria and other deadly diseases that disproportionately affect young children.

[kite]

2%

[theadvicist]

For about a decade, I donated 6 hours per week to an Arts related non-profit.  They also got quite a bit of cash donations out of me too.  It was a fun thing to do and quite social, which was the primary motivation for me. I made a bunch of friends there and found it to be a great creative outlet. More recently, I'm interested in charities that have a more serious mission, battling homelessness, mental illness, and addiction.  I'm jaded and cynical about Big Pink and similar kinds of charities or anything that raises awareness.  Don't bother asking for money to race for "the cure" but I'm all ears if money is all that is needed to get a Heroin addict into rehab.

I give to my church and to a nearby rescue squad that responded to an accident I was in some 30 years ago.  We've sponsored two teen mom's to get through college and onto homeownership.  I don't have trouble squaring my level of giving with FIRE goals.  I'm middle aged and doing exactly what I want.  I draw a nice salary doing demanding, stimulating work that I enjoy and I get to give away half of it.  If I die tomorrow, I get to give away the other half that I've accumulated. 

In my Catholic high school, some level of charity work was required in order to graduate and that began my hands on involvement over the years with various charities.  Like others have said, with tithing, the belief is that it belongs to God, and we're asked to be good stewards of it.

I must say I've never understood 'raising awareness'. 1) who isn't aware of cancer? No-one 2) if it's a rare illness, that will likely never affect me, why do I need to be aware? (I don't mean this as nastily as it sounds, I really feel for the plight of anyone affected by ill health, and I'll happily give money to look for a cure. But if it really is rare, you don't need to raise awareness explain the symptoms to me so I can look out for it, because if we did that with every obscure disease we'd all be in medical school for 6 years so we knew what to look for. Rare diseases are... rare by definition).

I understand raising MONEY, but not awareness. Can anyone shed light on why awareness is good, because I'm very open to the idea that I'm missing something obvious? Or is it just a euphemism for 'give us your money'?

[mak1277]

For about a decade, I donated 6 hours per week to an Arts related non-profit.  They also got quite a bit of cash donations out of me too.  It was a fun thing to do and quite social, which was the primary motivation for me. I made a bunch of friends there and found it to be a great creative outlet. More recently, I'm interested in charities that have a more serious mission, battling homelessness, mental illness, and addiction.  I'm jaded and cynical about Big Pink and similar kinds of charities or anything that raises awareness.  Don't bother asking for money to race for "the cure" but I'm all ears if money is all that is needed to get a Heroin addict into rehab.

I give to my church and to a nearby rescue squad that responded to an accident I was in some 30 years ago.  We've sponsored two teen mom's to get through college and onto homeownership.  I don't have trouble squaring my level of giving with FIRE goals.  I'm middle aged and doing exactly what I want.  I draw a nice salary doing demanding, stimulating work that I enjoy and I get to give away half of it.  If I die tomorrow, I get to give away the other half that I've accumulated. 

In my Catholic high school, some level of charity work was required in order to graduate and that began my hands on involvement over the years with various charities.  Like others have said, with tithing, the belief is that it belongs to God, and we're asked to be good stewards of it.

I must say I've never understood 'raising awareness'. 1) who isn't aware of cancer? No-one 2) if it's a rare illness, that will likely never affect me, why do I need to be aware? (I don't mean this as nastily as it sounds, I really feel for the plight of anyone affected by ill health, and I'll happily give money to look for a cure. But if it really is rare, you don't need to raise awareness explain the symptoms to me so I can look out for it, because if we did that with every obscure disease we'd all be in medical school for 6 years so we knew what to look for. Rare diseases are... rare by definition).

I understand raising MONEY, but not awareness. Can anyone shed light on why awareness is good, because I'm very open to the idea that I'm missing something obvious? Or is it just a euphemism for 'give us your money'?

I think awareness is a nice way of saying "we want your money".  If a particular charity/cause wants money, it needs to make sure people don't forget about it or become distracted by something else.  Of course everyone knows about cancer, but the specific organizations needs to stay in people's minds so people don't forget about donating. 

[justajane]

I think awareness is a nice way of saying "we want your money".  If a particular charity/cause wants money, it needs to make sure people don't forget about it or become distracted by something else.  Of course everyone knows about cancer, but the specific organizations needs to stay in people's minds so people don't forget about donating.

+1
It's like when my alma mater calls "just to update my contact information." Um, yeah, you want money but don't want to start the conversation with that.

I'm sure the ice bucket challenge was originally framed as a way to raise awareness of ALS; yet the most important impact long term was the over $100 million raised.

[Retired To Win]

There is a whole lot of non objectivist libertarian thought out there.

Of course there is, but Rand is pretty omnipresent. People are often implicitly applying objectivist thought without realizing it.

But this is a pretty major tangent from the OP.

Maybe, but... The OP (me) was a "card carrying' Objectivist for years.  And still agree with the vast, vast majority of the philosophy.  That being said, I am very clear that VOLUNTARY donations and Objectivism are totally compatible.  State-mandated "charity" via tax takings and income redistribution is not.

[Blonde Lawyer]

For about a decade, I donated 6 hours per week to an Arts related non-profit.  They also got quite a bit of cash donations out of me too.  It was a fun thing to do and quite social, which was the primary motivation for me. I made a bunch of friends there and found it to be a great creative outlet. More recently, I'm interested in charities that have a more serious mission, battling homelessness, mental illness, and addiction.  I'm jaded and cynical about Big Pink and similar kinds of charities or anything that raises awareness.  Don't bother asking for money to race for "the cure" but I'm all ears if money is all that is needed to get a Heroin addict into rehab.

I give to my church and to a nearby rescue squad that responded to an accident I was in some 30 years ago.  We've sponsored two teen mom's to get through college and onto homeownership.  I don't have trouble squaring my level of giving with FIRE goals.  I'm middle aged and doing exactly what I want.  I draw a nice salary doing demanding, stimulating work that I enjoy and I get to give away half of it.  If I die tomorrow, I get to give away the other half that I've accumulated. 

In my Catholic high school, some level of charity work was required in order to graduate and that began my hands on involvement over the years with various charities.  Like others have said, with tithing, the belief is that it belongs to God, and we're asked to be good stewards of it.

I must say I've never understood 'raising awareness'. 1) who isn't aware of cancer? No-one 2) if it's a rare illness, that will likely never affect me, why do I need to be aware? (I don't mean this as nastily as it sounds, I really feel for the plight of anyone affected by ill health, and I'll happily give money to look for a cure. But if it really is rare, you don't need to raise awareness explain the symptoms to me so I can look out for it, because if we did that with every obscure disease we'd all be in medical school for 6 years so we knew what to look for. Rare diseases are... rare by definition).

I understand raising MONEY, but not awareness. Can anyone shed light on why awareness is good, because I'm very open to the idea that I'm missing something obvious? Or is it just a euphemism for 'give us your money'?

I became involved with fundraising and "raising awareness" for the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation.  The awareness was key there because those diseases are invisible and there are some simple accommodations the world can make to make it easier for people with these diseases to live a normal life.  The most basic is bathroom access.  If you are a "no public bathroom" business you might re-think your stance, or let someone use your bathroom if they tell you they have Crohn's and can't wait.  Judge's might be more sympathetic to lawyers needing bathroom breaks during trial.  Your fellow passengers might not get so upset when you cut the TSA line or get to board a Southwest plane first to get a seat next to the bathroom.  (I've actually never had to cut the TSA line but I do have to sit near the bathroom).  After educating my local politicians about Crohns I was able to get a previously closed public bathroom at a local park re-opened.  Now I could work out there. 

Also, people with these diseases often feel isolated and embarrassed.  It meant a ton to me to learn there was a whole organization filled with people like me.  My husband had to hear the awareness campaign and tell me about it before I joined.  Also, many people with lifelong problems got tested for Crohns after I told them about it.  They had symptoms but never bothered to discuss it with their doctor.

I think awareness campaigns can be useful to help patients be treated better.  There is one out right now about a disease that causes people to laugh or cry in inappropriate settings.  If I saw someone laughing at an inopportune time I wouldn't just think "how insensitive" now.  I might think "they might not be able to control that."

Lastly, it is so much easier for me to just tell someone "I need to do x because I have Crohns" rather than having to say "I need to do x because I have a disease that can cause sudden uncontrollable diarrhea."

[NICE!]

Maybe, but... The OP (me) was a "card carrying' Objectivist for years.  And still agree with the vast, vast majority of the philosophy.  That being said, I am very clear that VOLUNTARY donations and Objectivism are totally compatible.  State-mandated "charity" via tax takings and income redistribution is not.

Under objectivism, of course it is ok if it is voluntary and it doesn't harm someone else. However, Rand has an entire essay about why she thinks altruism is bullshit. For the record, I think she makes some excellent points and they made me reconsider my positions. I still ultimately fall on the side of altruism but she definitely made me reconsider whether I'd jump in front of a bus to save a complete stranger.

All that is to say that I think that charity would make sense in Rand's mind, charity is a small issue and probably has more to do with someone's view on whether it is an investment that suits their interests (such as a cleaner ocean, which is where they get their seafood). I think Atlas Society's summary of this is sufficient:

http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4271-charity

Where I part with objectivists on this matter is that I do view giving as a moral obligation and not just an investment based upon someone's personal interest/values. Shoot me, I'm a bit of an altruist (but not totally).

[Tabaxus]

I donate 10% of my net income, and some years a bit more. Why? It comes down to a value choice. I enjoy helping the less fortunate, and improving the general quality of life for my community.

A good website to use to check overhead expenses of US nonprofits is www.guidestar.org. If you're really being nerdy, you can look up an organization's tax form (990) and see how much they pay their top execs, along with where the other funds go.

Some say you should donate globally and volunteer locally. That's because money goes farther in less developed countries. It's a little more difficult to investigate the finances of non-US based NGOs, though. I donated to a couple in Nepal recently, because I worked at an NGO there, so I have some direct experience.

In the U.S., I like Goodwill Industries. They help people get jobs. That's offering a hand up and not a handout. I also donate to our local Shakespeare in the Park, because that is one fun evening out. Shakespeare, being outdoors, wine, and a picnic.

I will never donate to United Way or SGK. My reasons are many, but in a nutshell, UW used to fulfill a real need when people couldn't investigate or donate to nonprofits easily. Today, you can look up the info on Guidestar or Charity Navigator, and you can go directly to a nonprofit's website and click the "donate" button. A large chunk of money donated to UW funds their own execs, admin department, HR department, accountants, etc. If you donate directly to the nonprofit, the nonprofit gets all that money, instead of another layer of bureaucracy at UW.

SGK, where to start? Someone else was talking about "awareness", and yes, who isn't aware that people need to do breast self-exams? Look at how much money they raise on any of their local 990s. Seriously, check it out, it's ridonkulous. A much smaller percentage of that goes to actual research than to advertising, which they call "public education". Another smaller amount goes for screenings, but it's a much less. The rest goes to pay their staff exorbitant salaries for nonprofit work. At some point, you're not raising awareness of the disease, you're raising awareness of your organization, so you can get more donations, so you can raise more awareness, so you can get more donations, etc. Breast cancer isn't even the number one killer of women, heart disease is, so it's also not an effective way to allocate donated money on a societal level. (See also ALS bucket challenge.)

Once you find a nonprofit you like, see if a foundation in your area will match your donation. Sometimes you can find campaigns for matched donations that happen annually. Donate your money then, and the nonprofit gets twice as much. Also, some nonprofits have set up their own foundation so that they can live off the interest in years to come. I approve of that kind of planning.

tldr: Investigate nonprofits at www.guidestar.org before donating.

On donating to non-U.S. entities:  I'm pretty sure such donations are not deductible unless you're donating to a valid friends-of US organization.  Just a head's up if you weren't aware.  There's a difference between donating to a U.S. entity that does overseas work and donating to an overseas entity.

[Tabaxus]

True. They have to be a 501(c)(3) for you to take the deduction.

Not just 501(c)(3).  A foreign entity can be a 501(c)(3). and therefore exempt from income tax, but contributions to such entity may not be eligible for a deduction under IRC 170.   IRC 170(c) provides:

" Charitable contribution defined
For purposes of this section, the term “charitable contribution” means a contribution or gift to or for the use of—
(1)A State, a possession of the United States, or any political subdivision of any of the foregoing, or the United States or the District of Columbia, but only if the contribution or gift is made for exclusively public purposes.
(2)A corporation, trust, or community chest, fund, or foundation—
(A)created or organized in the United States or in any possession thereof, or under the law of the United States, any State, the District of Columbia, or any possession of the United States;
(B)organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals;
(C)no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual; and
(D)which is not disqualified for tax exemption under section 501(c)(3) by reason of attempting to influence legislation, and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

[Retired To Win]

Maybe, but... The OP (me) was a "card carrying' Objectivist for years.  And still agree with the vast, vast majority of the philosophy.  That being said, I am very clear that VOLUNTARY donations and Objectivism are totally compatible.  State-mandated "charity" via tax takings and income redistribution is not.

Under objectivism, of course it is ok if it is voluntary and it doesn't harm someone else. However, Rand has an entire essay about why she thinks altruism is bullshit. For the record, I think she makes some excellent points and they made me reconsider my positions. I still ultimately fall on the side of altruism but she definitely made me reconsider whether I'd jump in front of a bus to save a complete stranger.

All that is to say that I think that charity would make sense in Rand's mind, charity is a small issue and probably has more to do with someone's view on whether it is an investment that suits their interests (such as a cleaner ocean, which is where they get their seafood). I think Atlas Society's summary of this is sufficient:

http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4271-charity

Where I part with objectivists on this matter is that I do view giving as a moral obligation and not just an investment based upon someone's personal interest/values. Shoot me, I'm a bit of an altruist (but not totally).

I won't shoot you, but I won't agree with you either.  I don't agree that giving is a "moral obligation."  That slippery slope long ago slid us into today's politically imposed/forced "giving."  It may be what is but that doesn't make it right.

[NICE!]

I won't shoot you, but I won't agree with you either.  I don't agree that giving is a "moral obligation."  That slippery slope long ago slid us into today's politically imposed/forced "giving."  It may be what is but that doesn't make it right.

And like I said, this is where I part from objectivism. I don't want moral obligations to become political obligations, but I certainly understand the retort that those things which are moral often become political/legal/compulsory. I completely understand, but I feel there are tons of things that aren't in the domain of law but are moral obligations.

However, none of this is to say I'd like to impose my will on anyone. Would I like to convince? Absolutely. I've learned that on this topic, I get one of two results - convince someone totally, or make them dig their heels in against giving. I'm working on it.

[takeahike]

I'm very random in my charitable giving. If I see something in the moment that moves me, then I give.

[theadvicist]

I became involved with fundraising and "raising awareness" for the Crohn's and Colitis Foundation.  The awareness was key there because those diseases are invisible and there are some simple accommodations the world can make to make it easier for people with these diseases to live a normal life.  The most basic is bathroom access.  If you are a "no public bathroom" business you might re-think your stance, or let someone use your bathroom if they tell you they have Crohn's and can't wait.  Judge's might be more sympathetic to lawyers needing bathroom breaks during trial.  Your fellow passengers might not get so upset when you cut the TSA line or get to board a Southwest plane first to get a seat next to the bathroom.  (I've actually never had to cut the TSA line but I do have to sit near the bathroom).  After educating my local politicians about Crohns I was able to get a previously closed public bathroom at a local park re-opened.  Now I could work out there. 

Also, people with these diseases often feel isolated and embarrassed.  It meant a ton to me to learn there was a whole organization filled with people like me.  My husband had to hear the awareness campaign and tell me about it before I joined.  Also, many people with lifelong problems got tested for Crohns after I told them about it.  They had symptoms but never bothered to discuss it with their doctor.

I think awareness campaigns can be useful to help patients be treated better.  There is one out right now about a disease that causes people to laugh or cry in inappropriate settings.  If I saw someone laughing at an inopportune time I wouldn't just think "how insensitive" now.  I might think "they might not be able to control that."

Lastly, it is so much easier for me to just tell someone "I need to do x because I have Crohns" rather than having to say "I need to do x because I have a disease that can cause sudden uncontrollable diarrhea."

Thank you The Blonde Lawyer, this makes perfect sense!

[2lazy2retire]

Maybe, but... The OP (me) was a "card carrying' Objectivist for years.  And still agree with the vast, vast majority of the philosophy.  That being said, I am very clear that VOLUNTARY donations and Objectivism are totally compatible.  State-mandated "charity" via tax takings and income redistribution is not.

Under objectivism, of course it is ok if it is voluntary and it doesn't harm someone else. However, Rand has an entire essay about why she thinks altruism is bullshit. For the record, I think she makes some excellent points and they made me reconsider my positions. I still ultimately fall on the side of altruism but she definitely made me reconsider whether I'd jump in front of a bus to save a complete stranger.

All that is to say that I think that charity would make sense in Rand's mind, charity is a small issue and probably has more to do with someone's view on whether it is an investment that suits their interests (such as a cleaner ocean, which is where they get their seafood). I think Atlas Society's summary of this is sufficient:

http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4271-charity

Where I part with objectivists on this matter is that I do view giving as a moral obligation and not just an investment based upon someone's personal interest/values. Shoot me, I'm a bit of an altruist (but not totally).

I won't shoot you, but I won't agree with you either.  I don't agree that giving is a "moral obligation."  That slippery slope long ago slid us into today's politically imposed/forced "giving."  It may be what is but that doesn't make it right.

So I assume that you do not claim any tax back based on your your donations then?

[Retired To Win]

Maybe, but... The OP (me) was a "card carrying' Objectivist for years.  And still agree with the vast, vast majority of the philosophy.  That being said, I am very clear that VOLUNTARY donations and Objectivism are totally compatible.  State-mandated "charity" via tax takings and income redistribution is not.

Under objectivism, of course it is ok if it is voluntary and it doesn't harm someone else. However, Rand has an entire essay about why she thinks altruism is bullshit. For the record, I think she makes some excellent points and they made me reconsider my positions. I still ultimately fall on the side of altruism but she definitely made me reconsider whether I'd jump in front of a bus to save a complete stranger.

All that is to say that I think that charity would make sense in Rand's mind, charity is a small issue and probably has more to do with someone's view on whether it is an investment that suits their interests (such as a cleaner ocean, which is where they get their seafood). I think Atlas Society's summary of this is sufficient:

http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4271-charity

Where I part with objectivists on this matter is that I do view giving as a moral obligation and not just an investment based upon someone's personal interest/values. Shoot me, I'm a bit of an altruist (but not totally).

I won't shoot you, but I won't agree with you either.  I don't agree that giving is a "moral obligation."  That slippery slope long ago slid us into today's politically imposed/forced "giving."  It may be what is but that doesn't make it right.

So I assume that you do not claim any tax back based on your your donations then?

I have NO idea why you would assume that.  I'm not going to add insult to injury (ON myself) by not trying to garner whatever tax deduction advantage I can manage so I can offset even in the slightest way the government-imposed forced giving I have no choice about.

[NICE!]

I have NO idea why you would assume that.  I'm not going to add insult to injury (ON myself) by not trying to garner whatever tax deduction advantage I can manage so I can offset even in the slightest way the government-imposed forced giving I have no choice about.

Yeah I'm not sure, either. I also don't agree with the ridiculous political arguments people make like "OH YOU ARE LIBERTARIAN THEN WHY DO YOU USE THE ROADS LOLOLOLOL!?!?!?!"

[Elderwood17]

This topic of charitable donations and FIRE is one we are struggling with, as our giving is very important to us and a few years has been near 20% of our gross earned income (normally closer to 10%).  None of our plans have accounted for continuing to give charitable donations upon FIRE so we will either stop and supplement with giving more of our time, earmarking consultant gigs, etc for charitable giving. Or a combination of things.

[Chris22]

I said people who don't donate to charity are selfish assholes...

The problem is, giving gets you "on the list" so to speak.  Write a check to one charity, and all the sudden you have 10 more calling you for more.  It's an attitude of "it's never enough".  I find that offensive.  I'd be much more likely to give if A) I was called once every 6 months, not every week and B) I knew giving to one charity was not going to get me on the mailing/telemarketing list for 6 more. 

Having just moved, I'm going to A) avoid having a landline and B) not get "on the list" at my new address.  Then all I have to do is fight the urge to mow down those asshats that beg for change for charity in stopped traffic on every street corner on the weekends.  Fuck those people.   

[theadvicist]

I said people who don't donate to charity are selfish assholes...

The problem is, giving gets you "on the list" so to speak.  Write a check to one charity, and all the sudden you have 10 more calling you for more.  It's an attitude of "it's never enough".  I find that offensive.  I'd be much more likely to give if A) I was called once every 6 months, not every week and B) I knew giving to one charity was not going to get me on the mailing/telemarketing list for 6 more. 

Having just moved, I'm going to A) avoid having a landline and B) not get "on the list" at my new address.  Then all I have to do is fight the urge to mow down those asshats that beg for change for charity in stopped traffic on every street corner on the weekends.  Fuck those people.

No need to not give - just make clear you don't want to be added to their lists.

I sent a couple of cheques at Christmas with a clear note saying 'Please do not contact me again or pass my details on', and when I give online I always look closely at the boxes to check / uncheck (actually, I often do subscribe to email alerts to hear what's going on and because it is cheap for the charity. Free pens etc, and postal costs, annoy me).

Very rarely get solicitations, certainly never had one by phone, and the postal ones tend to be the ones blanket delivered and not addressed by name, just to "The Householder"

[Chris22]

I said people who don't donate to charity are selfish assholes...

The problem is, giving gets you "on the list" so to speak.  Write a check to one charity, and all the sudden you have 10 more calling you for more.  It's an attitude of "it's never enough".  I find that offensive.  I'd be much more likely to give if A) I was called once every 6 months, not every week and B) I knew giving to one charity was not going to get me on the mailing/telemarketing list for 6 more. 

Having just moved, I'm going to A) avoid having a landline and B) not get "on the list" at my new address.  Then all I have to do is fight the urge to mow down those asshats that beg for change for charity in stopped traffic on every street corner on the weekends.  Fuck those people.

No need to not give - just make clear you don't want to be added to their lists.

I sent a couple of cheques at Christmas with a clear note saying 'Please do not contact me again or pass my details on', and when I give online I always look closely at the boxes to check / uncheck (actually, I often do subscribe to email alerts to hear what's going on and because it is cheap for the charity. Free pens etc, and postal costs, annoy me).

Very rarely get solicitations, certainly never had one by phone, and the postal ones tend to be the ones blanket delivered and not addressed by name, just to "The Householder"

That is literally amazing to me, unless you don't have a landline. 

[theadvicist]

I said people who don't donate to charity are selfish assholes...

The problem is, giving gets you "on the list" so to speak.  Write a check to one charity, and all the sudden you have 10 more calling you for more.  It's an attitude of "it's never enough".  I find that offensive.  I'd be much more likely to give if A) I was called once every 6 months, not every week and B) I knew giving to one charity was not going to get me on the mailing/telemarketing list for 6 more. 

Having just moved, I'm going to A) avoid having a landline and B) not get "on the list" at my new address.  Then all I have to do is fight the urge to mow down those asshats that beg for change for charity in stopped traffic on every street corner on the weekends.  Fuck those people.

No need to not give - just make clear you don't want to be added to their lists.

I sent a couple of cheques at Christmas with a clear note saying 'Please do not contact me again or pass my details on', and when I give online I always look closely at the boxes to check / uncheck (actually, I often do subscribe to email alerts to hear what's going on and because it is cheap for the charity. Free pens etc, and postal costs, annoy me).

Very rarely get solicitations, certainly never had one by phone, and the postal ones tend to be the ones blanket delivered and not addressed by name, just to "The Householder"

That is literally amazing to me, unless you don't have a landline.

We do have a landline. I get calls about making a (non-existant) personal injury claim constantly! I'm in the UK though and I think privacy laws may be stronger? If you say you don't want calls and they call you they can be prosecuted.

[Chris22]

I said people who don't donate to charity are selfish assholes...

The problem is, giving gets you "on the list" so to speak.  Write a check to one charity, and all the sudden you have 10 more calling you for more.  It's an attitude of "it's never enough".  I find that offensive.  I'd be much more likely to give if A) I was called once every 6 months, not every week and B) I knew giving to one charity was not going to get me on the mailing/telemarketing list for 6 more. 

Having just moved, I'm going to A) avoid having a landline and B) not get "on the list" at my new address.  Then all I have to do is fight the urge to mow down those asshats that beg for change for charity in stopped traffic on every street corner on the weekends.  Fuck those people.

No need to not give - just make clear you don't want to be added to their lists.

I sent a couple of cheques at Christmas with a clear note saying 'Please do not contact me again or pass my details on', and when I give online I always look closely at the boxes to check / uncheck (actually, I often do subscribe to email alerts to hear what's going on and because it is cheap for the charity. Free pens etc, and postal costs, annoy me).

Very rarely get solicitations, certainly never had one by phone, and the postal ones tend to be the ones blanket delivered and not addressed by name, just to "The Householder"

That is literally amazing to me, unless you don't have a landline.

We do have a landline. I get calls about making a (non-existant) personal injury claim constantly! I'm in the UK though and I think privacy laws may be stronger? If you say you don't want calls and they call you they can be prosecuted.

Ah, okay.  I believe (could be wrong) in the US that charitable and political groups are exempt from our "do not call" list.  Which is horseshit.

[theadvicist]

Ah, okay.  I believe (could be wrong) in the US that charitable and political groups are exempt from our "do not call" list.  Which is horseshit.

If that is the case that's ridiculous! And also kind of corrupt... No-one can call you if you request not to be called... except the people making the legislation about who can and cannot call?!

[Psychstache]

Ah, okay.  I believe (could be wrong) in the US that charitable and political groups are exempt from our "do not call" list.  Which is horseshit.

If that is the case that's ridiculous! And also kind of corrupt... No-one can call you if you request not to be called... except the people making the legislation about who can and cannot call?!

What's even more ridiculous is having a landline if you are under the age of 90  :P

(disclaimer: I realize there are some circumstances where one might want/need a landline. I just like to poke fun since the only people I know who have landlines are the previous generation)

[theadvicist]

Ah, okay.  I believe (could be wrong) in the US that charitable and political groups are exempt from our "do not call" list.  Which is horseshit.

If that is the case that's ridiculous! And also kind of corrupt... No-one can call you if you request not to be called... except the people making the legislation about who can and cannot call?!

What's even more ridiculous is having a landline if you are under the age of 90  :P

(disclaimer: I realize there are some circumstances where one might want/need a landline. I just like to poke fun since the only people I know who have landlines are the previous generation)

Ha ha, the only people who call me on it (apart from nuisance calls) are from the older generation! We only have it because we need it for broadband (requirement for my husband's job). Since we pay for the line regardless, I plugged a phone in since my mother and mother-in-law can call a landline for free.

[Chris22]

Ah, okay.  I believe (could be wrong) in the US that charitable and political groups are exempt from our "do not call" list.  Which is horseshit.

If that is the case that's ridiculous! And also kind of corrupt... No-one can call you if you request not to be called... except the people making the legislation about who can and cannot call?!

What's even more ridiculous is having a landline if you are under the age of 90  :P

(disclaimer: I realize there are some circumstances where one might want/need a landline. I just like to poke fun since the only people I know who have landlines are the previous generation)

My home office was in the basement in my last house (worked from home pretty regularly at my last role) and didn't get cell phone reception underground.  Also, I have a young child and am not comfortable not having 911 access in the case of an emergency and having to rely on cell phones.  Given that I am now going to live much closer to "civilization" and my basement is only partially underground with good reception I may change my mind on this.

[2lazy2retire]

Maybe, but... The OP (me) was a "card carrying' Objectivist for years.  And still agree with the vast, vast majority of the philosophy.  That being said, I am very clear that VOLUNTARY donations and Objectivism are totally compatible.  State-mandated "charity" via tax takings and income redistribution is not.

Under objectivism, of course it is ok if it is voluntary and it doesn't harm someone else. However, Rand has an entire essay about why she thinks altruism is bullshit. For the record, I think she makes some excellent points and they made me reconsider my positions. I still ultimately fall on the side of altruism but she definitely made me reconsider whether I'd jump in front of a bus to save a complete stranger.

All that is to say that I think that charity would make sense in Rand's mind, charity is a small issue and probably has more to do with someone's view on whether it is an investment that suits their interests (such as a cleaner ocean, which is where they get their seafood). I think Atlas Society's summary of this is sufficient:

http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4271-charity

Where I part with objectivists on this matter is that I do view giving as a moral obligation and not just an investment based upon someone's personal interest/values. Shoot me, I'm a bit of an altruist (but not totally).

I won't shoot you, but I won't agree with you either.  I don't agree that giving is a "moral obligation."  That slippery slope long ago slid us into today's politically imposed/forced "giving."  It may be what is but that doesn't make it right.

So I assume that you do not claim any tax back based on your your donations then?

I have NO idea why you would assume that.  I'm not going to add insult to injury (ON myself) by not trying to garner whatever tax deduction advantage I can manage so I can offset even in the slightest way the government-imposed forced giving I have no choice about.

For someone who is against "politically imposed/forced giving" why do you feel comfortable forcing me to finance your church using my tax dollars

[NICE!]

For someone who is against "politically imposed/forced giving" why do you feel comfortable forcing me to finance your church using my tax dollars

I think one can advocate a position, vote for change, support change, while still working within the confines of the system as it exists. For example, the overwhelming majority of pacifists pay taxes. How are they comfortable supporting defense spending? What about privacy advocates? How are they comfortable spending to spy on themselves and others?

I'm not a fan of tax-exempt status for religious organizations, nor am I a fan of the mortgage interest deduction. I'm also a bit of an environmentalist but we subsidize the shit out of fossil fuels. What am I supposed to do, be a pauper so I avoid all taxes while simultaneously avoid using any government services?

Like I said, let's not play reducto ad absurdum. It is shallow and we're better than that.

[Urizen]

I'm not FI, but I do have a slot in my budget for charity. I come at the problem from a very very amateur effective altruism stance, so I try to donate in the most efficient way possible. How I go about it:

The way I see it, all money beyond my Needs ("Needs" in this case meaning my expenses, my investments, and money for delights of any kind, so more than just bare bones living)is useless to me. Since Needs already includes the investments that will secure my future and the "fun money" that lets me do things that make life enjoyable, there is literally nothing else to buy. So, I donate it away. All of it.

Right now, I am not FI, so that means my Needs ALWAYS covers my entire budget. To make up for this, I simply work a charity expenditure into my yearly expenses. To give an example from my recent budget: I budgeted for $12,000 annual expenses, and my actual expenses fall well within that number. Since I have a difference between my estimated expenses and my actual, I have a cushion for making charity donations. I simply make sure that the donations don't push me too close to hitting the estimated expenses cap. Then I still come away with an excess and I make a donation to improve society.

The way I figure out what to donate TO is always changing. Right now, I have three donation categories: education, technology, and health. I divide my overall charity "fund" into three and donate an equal amount to all three categories. I make one large donation at the end of the year (which also allows me to adjust my donation if any unexpected expenses arose during the year), choosing from among the various organizations that represent each category whichever I feel will give the most return from the money I put into them. "Health" tends to be whichever organization is able to do the most direct good most efficiently (American Red Cross is a standard, but I'm using GiveWell to determine if I want to give elsewhere). "Education" is to whichever organization I feel will provide the most potential good most efficiently (CFAR has my eye in this). "Technology" is whoever has the potential to bring about the most worthwhile change (MIRI is the current head of this one).

[2lazy2retire]

For someone who is against "politically imposed/forced giving" why do you feel comfortable forcing me to finance your church using my tax dollars

I think one can advocate a position, vote for change, support change, while still working within the confines of the system as it exists. For example, the overwhelming majority of pacifists pay taxes. How are they comfortable supporting defense spending? What about privacy advocates? How are they comfortable spending to spy on themselves and others?

I'm not a fan of tax-exempt status for religious organizations, nor am I a fan of the mortgage interest deduction. I'm also a bit of an environmentalist but we subsidize the shit out of fossil fuels. What am I supposed to do, be a pauper so I avoid all taxes while simultaneously avoid using any government services?

Like I said, let's not play reducto ad absurdum. It is shallow and we're better than that.

The overwhelming majority pay taxes as they have no choice in the matter, the OP has a clear choice and as someone who shouts the cause of those forced to subsidize things they are against he should lead by example and stop taking my money to fund his church.

[Retired To Win]

Maybe, but... The OP (me) was a "card carrying' Objectivist for years.  And still agree with the vast, vast majority of the philosophy.  That being said, I am very clear that VOLUNTARY donations and Objectivism are totally compatible.  State-mandated "charity" via tax takings and income redistribution is not.

Under objectivism, of course it is ok if it is voluntary and it doesn't harm someone else. However, Rand has an entire essay about why she thinks altruism is bullshit. For the record, I think she makes some excellent points and they made me reconsider my positions. I still ultimately fall on the side of altruism but she definitely made me reconsider whether I'd jump in front of a bus to save a complete stranger.

All that is to say that I think that charity would make sense in Rand's mind, charity is a small issue and probably has more to do with someone's view on whether it is an investment that suits their interests (such as a cleaner ocean, which is where they get their seafood). I think Atlas Society's summary of this is sufficient:

http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4271-charity

Where I part with objectivists on this matter is that I do view giving as a moral obligation and not just an investment based upon someone's personal interest/values. Shoot me, I'm a bit of an altruist (but not totally).

I won't shoot you, but I won't agree with you either.  I don't agree that giving is a "moral obligation."  That slippery slope long ago slid us into today's politically imposed/forced "giving."  It may be what is but that doesn't make it right.

So I assume that you do not claim any tax back based on your your donations then?

I have NO idea why you would assume that.  I'm not going to add insult to injury (ON myself) by not trying to garner whatever tax deduction advantage I can manage so I can offset even in the slightest way the government-imposed forced giving I have no choice about.

For someone who is against "politically imposed/forced giving" why do you feel comfortable forcing me to finance your church using my tax dollars

Who the hell says I'm doing that?  Churches don't get government money.  And I see my church's income statement every month, so I KNOW.  The only thing that funds my church's operations is individual voluntary donations and bequests.  And fundraisers.

[NICE!]

For someone who is against "politically imposed/forced giving" why do you feel comfortable forcing me to finance your church using my tax dollars

I think one can advocate a position, vote for change, support change, while still working within the confines of the system as it exists. For example, the overwhelming majority of pacifists pay taxes. How are they comfortable supporting defense spending? What about privacy advocates? How are they comfortable spending to spy on themselves and others?

I'm not a fan of tax-exempt status for religious organizations, nor am I a fan of the mortgage interest deduction. I'm also a bit of an environmentalist but we subsidize the shit out of fossil fuels. What am I supposed to do, be a pauper so I avoid all taxes while simultaneously avoid using any government services?

Like I said, let's not play reducto ad absurdum. It is shallow and we're better than that.

The overwhelming majority pay taxes as they have no choice in the matter, the OP has a clear choice and as someone who shouts the cause of those forced to subsidize things they are against he should lead by example and stop taking my money to fund his church.

This is still reducto ad absurdum.

People that hate exploitation of poor people in other countries by clothing and electronics produced in terrible ways. They have a choice not to do this. Super environmentalists have a choice not to use the roads which overwhelmingly encourage automobile living and sprawl. They also could not use electricity, particularly from CO2 spewers. Progressives are more than happy to boycott the shit out of Chick Fil A but turn a blind eye to Apple. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Give it a rest. Human thought is filled with contradictions - you can have an ideal and do things differently in the messy real world. Ideological purists are often some of the scariest people on Earth.

[2lazy2retire]

Maybe, but... The OP (me) was a "card carrying' Objectivist for years.  And still agree with the vast, vast majority of the philosophy.  That being said, I am very clear that VOLUNTARY donations and Objectivism are totally compatible.  State-mandated "charity" via tax takings and income redistribution is not.

Under objectivism, of course it is ok if it is voluntary and it doesn't harm someone else. However, Rand has an entire essay about why she thinks altruism is bullshit. For the record, I think she makes some excellent points and they made me reconsider my positions. I still ultimately fall on the side of altruism but she definitely made me reconsider whether I'd jump in front of a bus to save a complete stranger.

All that is to say that I think that charity would make sense in Rand's mind, charity is a small issue and probably has more to do with someone's view on whether it is an investment that suits their interests (such as a cleaner ocean, which is where they get their seafood). I think Atlas Society's summary of this is sufficient:

http://atlassociety.org/commentary/commentary-blog/4271-charity

Where I part with objectivists on this matter is that I do view giving as a moral obligation and not just an investment based upon someone's personal interest/values. Shoot me, I'm a bit of an altruist (but not totally).

I won't shoot you, but I won't agree with you either.  I don't agree that giving is a "moral obligation."  That slippery slope long ago slid us into today's politically imposed/forced "giving."  It may be what is but that doesn't make it right.

So I assume that you do not claim any tax back based on your your donations then?

I have NO idea why you would assume that.  I'm not going to add insult to injury (ON myself) by not trying to garner whatever tax deduction advantage I can manage so I can offset even in the slightest way the government-imposed forced giving I have no choice about.

For someone who is against "politically imposed/forced giving" why do you feel comfortable forcing me to finance your church using my tax dollars

Who the hell says I'm doing that?  Churches don't get government money.  And I see my church's income statement every month, so I KNOW.  The only thing that funds my church's operations is individual voluntary donations and bequests.  And fundraisers.

Ok assume your marginal tax rate is 25% and you give $1000 to your church, come April 15th you get a refund for $250, your outgoing is now $750 but the church still has $1000 thanks to the goverment handout via kickback on your taxes. Sure it will not show up on the church books as you are merely a conduit for that handout. Would you feel better about social security if the goverment gave it all to the church and let them redistribute it .
To be honest I have nothing against charities/churches getting money in this fashion but what I do object to is the hypocrisy of those who rant about forced giving and goverment stealing BS on one hand while happily laundering goverment money to their organization of choice with the other.
Someone else was talking about ideological purists, I'm hardly that but I do appreciate a bit of honesty in the argument complain all you want about the goverment ( we all do) but do not deny that you are also forcing others to give.

[fb132]

I will donate some of my money when I am dead .

[NICE!]

Ok assume your marginal tax rate is 25% and you give $1000 to your church, come April 15th you get a refund for $250, your outgoing is now $750 but the church still has $1000 thanks to the goverment handout via kickback on your taxes. Sure it will not show up on the church books as you are merely a conduit for that handout. Would you feel better about social security if the goverment gave it all to the church and let them redistribute it .
To be honest I have nothing against charities/churches getting money in this fashion but what I do object to is the hypocrisy of those who rant about forced giving and goverment stealing BS on one hand while happily laundering goverment money to their organization of choice with the other.
Someone else was talking about ideological purists, I'm hardly that but I do appreciate a bit of honesty in the argument complain all you want about the goverment ( we all do) but do not deny that you are also forcing others to give.

That's fine but would you have this same ridiculous conversation with all of the aforementioned groups? You pick out conservatives/libertarians because you don't like this particular argument, but I'm doubting you pick out others. If you do, good on you, but I rarely see calls for this kind of "honesty" in any other political discussion.

[Retired To Win]

Ok assume your marginal tax rate is 25% and you give $1000 to your church, come April 15th you get a refund for $250, your outgoing is now $750 but the church still has $1000 thanks to the goverment handout via kickback on your taxes. Sure it will not show up on the church books as you are merely a conduit for that handout. Would you feel better about social security if the goverment gave it all to the church and let them redistribute it .
To be honest I have nothing against charities/churches getting money in this fashion but what I do object to is the hypocrisy of those who rant about forced giving and goverment stealing BS on one hand while happily laundering goverment money to their organization of choice with the other.
Someone else was talking about ideological purists, I'm hardly that but I do appreciate a bit of honesty in the argument complain all you want about the goverment ( we all do) but do not deny that you are also forcing others to give.

Getting to keep some of your OWN money via a tax deduction is not getting a government handout.  I'm afraid you are really off the mark with your understanding of this.