Charitable donations and moral issues

[enot06]

As a middle-class person married with 3 children and with conviction that my wealth should be shared with those in need I put some thought into the subject of giving.

In old times there was a suggested and sometimes enforced part of your wealth to be given away - that is one tenth (1/10, 10%).  I talk about familiar institutions - Orthodox or Catholic church, about Synagogue with "Tzedakah".  Tell me if it's different in any similar institution.
On one hand it was a prompt to give, on another - a suggestion not to take pride in donating "better" than other people do.

People raising their own or adopted children and taking care of their own old parents and family members as well as helping elderly neighbors spend time and money on good cause.
Though it's not as obviously good as donating over 50% of you income to organizations helping 3d world poor I trust my instincts. For me taking care of my own family and neighbors is no less valuable, must be done and should go first.

When it comes to sharing wealth personal acquaintances in need go first. Then Hospice system in the city where I was born, Counseling on Aging in my town (local organization helping elderly), funds helping families of victims of terror in Israel. I don't mind giving a bit to wikipedia and similar services since they provide services I use free of charge and free of advertising. There are other worthy causes, no doubt, I'm just sharing my current choices.

This is my response to the question about picking the cause posted by Julia Wise, 24-year old philanthropist, who together with her husband gives away over 50% of their income (ref. via avva & yucca).

Comments

[mi-b.livejournal.com]

Actually, at the time when people paid 1/10 to the church there were no income taxes levied by the state. So nothing changed except 10 became 20-40

[enot.livejournal.com]

I don't agree that it's the same.
The Church (in theory) was specifically collecting money to redistribute wealth and support those in need. The State collects money to use it for it's own maintenance, foreign relations (war, foreign aid), public infrastructure, education and social security (the latter two were not the state domain in old times). So to some extent state now it redistributing the wealth to support those in need.
Wiki (according to wiki, it's 2010, but png name is 2007):


Information is accessible but not easily comprehensible on http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

One more thing: when The Church was managing charitable donations, the church and people had similar understanding of right and wrong, and where the money should go (church was cheating and using too much for it's own interest, and eventually protestants came to existence etc.). In modern times donating at individual level is quite different from redistributing wealth through tax system. One may give money for medical research or homeless shelter but hardly to fund and expensive overseas war operation "to defend democracy" with no clear exit strategy.

[skychild17.livejournal.com]

Hello Enot,
Julia here from Giving Gladly (http://www.givinggladly.com/) - thanks for responding. To clarify, my husband and I are now 26 and are giving less than 50% because I'm currently in grad school and not earning any money. We do plan to go back to that level once I have a job, though.

I do think it's a basic human instinct to take care of ourselves and our families before strangers, but I think we can look at that instinct and decide when to override it. My husband and I try to figure out what a basic level of needs are - do we need rent and groceries? Yes. Extra bedroom, car and iPod? No. When we have children, that decision making will get more complicated, but I think we'll be able to keep our spending well below what's normal for Americans.

I also think that giving to the people most in need and whose problems can be helped by my donation - such as third-world development - makes more sense than people in my community. The needs in my community are just not as bad, and not as easy to help, as in some other communities.

[mi-b.livejournal.com]

The church was never supposed to spend all donations on those in need, even in theory. Just at look enormous cathedrals they erected in every european town or at Vatican art collections. Anyway, 10% they levied is far less than current US state welfare spending (40%+ of 38% of GDP is much more than 10% of income).

It is not obvious that people had more sympathy and agreement with church spending priorities than they have with state priorities now. They certainly had less control.

[julia wise (from livejournal.com)]

Hello Enot,
Julia here from Giving Gladly (http://www.givinggladly.com/) - thanks for responding. To clarify, my husband and I are now 26 and are giving less than 50% because I'm currently in grad school and not earning any money. We do plan to go back to that level once I have a job, though.

I do think it's a basic human instinct to take care of ourselves and our families before strangers, but I think we can look at that instinct and decide when to override it. My husband and I try to figure out what a basic level of needs are - do we need rent and groceries? Yes. Extra bedroom, car and iPod? No. When we have children, that decision making will get more complicated, but I think we'll be able to keep our spending well below what's normal for Americans.

I also think that giving to the people most in need and whose problems can be helped by my donation - such as third-world development - makes more sense than people in my community. The needs in my community are just not as bad, and not as easy to help, as in some other communities.

[anna-i.livejournal.com]

I am with you on this one.

Sorry I didn't get back to you on friday, it was a crazy day, Sara wasn't telling me what was going on, etc. We should do it some other time, though.

[enot.livejournal.com]

Sure, no prob.
I miss LA!

[enot.livejournal.com]

Julia, thank you for responding.
I respect your choice in donating and it was a prompt for me to put down in writing as what I think and do in this regard.

I worked with a guy who went to Africa (I think it was Central Africa, may be Congo) to teach kids at school. He did so for two years. It was an amazing experience for him. On one hand he got perspective of what poverty is and how these kids run 5-8 miles to come to school and get education. On the other hand he had sense of purpose donating his time and delaying making money in American Hitech. But then he came back and settled with a regular life, job, family (wife and children) and whatever comes with it - house in suburbs with decent school system etc.

So there is time to live free of family obligations and there is time to put family first. As much as I respect you choice I won't understand you doing the same thing if you had children. Or donating your time to charity and not taking care of your parents if your aging parents were in need of help.

One more thing. I was born in Moscow (former USSR) and though there are very rich or just well-off people living in Moscow now and many of them donate to charities, the hospice system there founded not long ago and can use my money. I've seen hospice system in action and I know where my money goes. I'm sure you too are serious and responsible about your donations.

[enot.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I guess it a decent topic for thesis - what people expected The Church to do with their 1/10 as opposed to what was done at different times. Obviously, it all went wrong by the time Martin Luther gained popularity in early XVI century :)

[uellajute.livejournal.com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6M_6qOz-yw