Is this Charity Plan Selfish?

[TromboneAl]

Let's say that instead of giving, say, $2,000 to charity each year, you put that $2,000 in particular mutual fund account, with instructions in your will that the contents of that account should go to a specified charity.

The advantages of this system are:

1. If you miscalculated your retirement funds, you will have a backup
2. The charity will probably get more, since you are a better investor than they are

The disadvantages

1. The charity may not get any money from you for 40 years.
2. Yet another mutual fund to keep track of

What do you think?

 

[cantlogin]

I think it is an excellent way of doing things.

 

[youbet]

T_AL.....

I don't know whether your plan is "selfish" or not or even what "selfish" means in that context. You're really talking about two levels of generousity. I'd just say that if using your plan I'd miss the nice warm and fuzzy feeling I get from giving in the present and I'd also miss the tax deduction. So, I do a little of both. I give now and I have charitable causes mentioned in my will.

Whenever you give, it's great you can afford to and even more so that you're willing to!

I'd describe your plan as "cautious" rather than "selfish."

 

[boutros]

also disadvantages: no immediate tax deduction, you pay distributed capital gains (obviously avoidable), part of your assets in divorce or college funding calculations for children, can't take advantage of giving appreciated investments, no immediate impact for charity.

Some of these can be mitigated by using a charitable remainder trust but they have disadvantages as well.

 

[brewer12345]

Its your money: do with it as you see fit.

How about a charitable gift annuity? You hand over appreciated assets in exchange for a tax deduction and a stream of payments for life. The charity keeps what is left.

 

[bbbamI]

I believe any charity would want it now because without it they may have to cut services for that year.

That being said, giving, no matter how it's done is never selfish.

 

[Notmuchlonger]

Its your money. When they get it they get it.

 

[Achiever51]

While your proposal is admirable, the charities I worked with always needed money in the "here and now", particularly when the economy is hurting. And wouldn't you like to know that your contribution is helping someone right now?

Of course, if you'd prefer to have your gifts be ever-lasting in helping that charity, you could always designate it for the charity's endowment fund -- and still get your immediate tax deduction. You might even challenge the charity to find matching funds for your gift (I'll give you an additional $xxx if you raise $XXX by 12/31/09, for example) to give more incentive to the group's other givers.


But know that however you chose to support whatever charities are close to your heart, ultimately, they will appreciate it deeply.

 

[dex]

Aren't you then giving up the tax deduction that way?

 

[TromboneAl]

To play devil's advocate, it's selfish because it's saying "Here's some money for you, starving children, but only if I don't need it."

 

[REWahoo]

To play devil's advocate, it's selfish because it's saying "Here's some money for you, starving children, but only if I don't need it."

Few people give money they need to charity.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

my feeling is that all acts are selfish in that we do for our own pleasure including self-sacrifice. some selfish acts benefit others. some of those we call selfless but it is just a play on words.

delaying the pleasure of giving is not unbefitting of a lbym's lifestyle. as to non-anonymous giving, i've listed some of what i consider worthy causes as partial beneficiary of ira accounts which i'll probably tap last if at all so they will benefit from my lbym lifestyle in a timely lbym's way. patience is a virtue for charity too.

 

[Achiever51]

Aren't you then giving up the tax deduction that way?

Not sure this was addressed to my post about contributing to a charity's endowment, but if it was, the answer is you're still entitled to your tax deduction because you've still passed control of your asset to the charity and received nothing of material value for it.

You can designate your charitable funds to be used for programs or administrative expenses or endowment or scholarships or whatever -- just as long as you do not receive anything of value (beyond good will or a small token of appreciation) in exchange. (Note: You cannot, for example, "donate" $xxx to a university and designate it for a scholarship for your child as you would be receiving something of value in return.)

As for setting up a matching challenge, you'd be eligible for the tax deduction once you give your check to the charity (i.e., after they notified you that they raised the match, for example.)

 

[Coach]

I like it Al, and it does not seem selfish to me.

Coach

 

[megacorp-firee]

How can giving money to others be selfish? Good karma to you T-Al.

 

[homestead]

For me to do this
the motive to delay the charity seems self serving,
but still better than giving nothing.
It seems to be giving out abundance rather than sacrifice.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

since you can not give what you do not have, when is giving not of abundance?

 

[Nords]

Let's say that instead of giving, say, $2,000 to charity each year, you put that $2,000 in particular mutual fund account, with instructions in your will that the contents of that account should go to a specified charity.

That used to be Buffett's approach-- he felt that he could compound money better than any charitable endowment, and he felt that he'd never have to worry about giving it away because he'd die before his wife and it'd be her problem.

Then Susan Buffett died and he had to re-do his estate planning. And somewhere along the process he noticed that Melinda Gates was doing a pretty good job with her foundation.

When we make our charitable donations we move the money to Fidelity's donor-advised charitable gift fund. We can't get it back but we can separate the tax deduction from the issue of when to give the money. That way we can donate appreciated shares (or sell at the top) when it makes sense, and we can make a grant at a specific time or for a specific project.

If you'd rather retain control of the money, though, then why put it into a separate fund? Another approach would be to keep it in your portfolio and just track it with a spreadsheet or a Quicken lot.

 

[bright eyed]

If you need the $ then don't give it away

Consistant giving is as important (maybe more) to non-profits as one-time $ they need for that year. Many donors give one time gifts and then "rotate" who they donate to or move on to another issue etc. Consider your donation an "investment" and give consistantly and over time and the group and it's beneficiaries will prosper more!

 

[haha]

To play devil's advocate, it's selfish because it's saying "Here's some money for you, starving children, but only if I don't need it."

Were you a scholastic philosopher in the Middle Ages?

 

[haha]

Then Susan Buffett died and he had to re-do his estate planning. And somewhere along the process he noticed that Melinda Gates was doing a pretty good job with her foundation.

My charity is very direct. When the spirit moves me I buy a few blankets and distribute them to street people.

I have several criteria for charitable acts. They should please me, they shouldn't cost very much, and they should not involve empowering some busy-body. I also prefer that they be local.

A meta concern is that they not worsen over-population in 3rd world countries, which is generally covered by "local".

Ha

 

[homestead]

since you can not give what you do not have, when is giving not of abundance?

When the person giving does not have enough for themselves but chooses
to sacrifice so that the other person can have something too.

 

[Moemg]

I like to pick one local charity and give to it . Ha ,The idea of the blankets is nice but in florida I guess I'd have to buy sunscreen and give that instead . What amazes me is how many more homeless people there are in colder climates . You are homeless wouldn't it be easier to sleep outside in Florida than Washington DC.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

When the person giving does not have enough for themselves but chooses to sacrifice so that the other person can have something too.

as lovely as that sounds, what some see as self-sacrifice others call self-righteous.

abundance is a relative term. anyone who gives to another person some of what they have either has enough to share (whether or not you perceive that as an abundance worthy of your coffers, it is apparently abundant enough for them) or they didn't need it in the first place (it was just taking up otherwise needed space) or--when there is no plenty at all--they choose death, the ultimate in self-sacrifice. i have only so much air, but my neighbor needs air and has none, so i will give my neighbor my air to breathe that he might live and i might die.

have there been many sacrifices for nothing offered up to the gods, or is the history of sacrifice more a matter of deal-making? i offer up to you the life of this virgin if you will just send down my people some rain. i sacrifice my life for god that i might one day be rewarded with heaven. so much for the sacrosanctity of sacrifice, the transactions practiced by merchants of morality.

where is the sacrifice which is not self-serving? would you have felt better to have kept your air and left your neighbor to suffocation? or did you do without to relieve your own empathic suffering so great as to be remedied only by your own death?

is it a bit judgmental to presume first that your charity is selfless while another's is self-serving and then to assume authority to absolve what you see as another person's moral decay with "it is better than giving nothing." i would examine what motivates my own tithing before passing such judgment on others.

 

[homestead]

is it a bit judgmental to presume first that your charity is selfless while another's is self-serving ...

Read my post again, I was speaking of myself not the poster.