4 ms·
Dilemma for those of us considering donating: 1. Donate (50) years from now: our investments will grow substantially on a compounded basis, and we'll give much
by zhyder 8y ago
Dilemma for those of us considering donating:
1. Donate (50) years from now: our investments will grow substantially on a compounded basis, and we'll give much more in dollars, even after adjusting for inflation
2. Donate now: we'll give much less, but -if donated to the right causes- the beneficiaries will see compounded benefits. E.g. this lady helped educate beneficiaries via college scholarships, and these beneficiaries will benefit from that education throughout their lifetime, from today till (50) years from now, with increased pay. (If a college scholarship seems to necessitate only big donations, and you can't imagine fractional scholarships being useful, imagine smaller donations for buying books for poor kids, etc)
I don't know the answer myself, and sincerely could use debate here.
- bo0tzz 8y agoI think a nuance here is that #2 will still hold later, say the 50 years from now that you mention in #1. It will just be other beneficiaries.
- zhyder 8y agoTrue. One can make nuanced arguments around #1 as well. What if we were talking about saving kids from preventable fatal diseases by donating vaccines (or donating to research efforts that are developing non-profitable vaccines); those kids won't even be alive in 50 years. Or what if it was something that'd make kids more literate; in 50 years (hopefully!) literacy won't be a problem anymore, and higher education might be massively disrupted by MOOCs, etc.
- hundt 8y agoI also think that, when I think of the beneficiaries of the giving as real people and not abstract "lives improved/saved," then "donate now" seems more compelling. Certainly I could not tell a potential beneficiary to their face that I'm saving the money for the unlikely possibility that I need it myself, but it's fine because if it is too late for them by the time I donate I will probably be able to help someone else just as much or more at that time. Along that same line of thinking: if my siblings desperately needed financial help and I could afford to give it to them, I would surely not keep the money out of a desire to have more later that I could give to my nieces and nephews.
- dec0dedab0de 8y agoI think it depends if you take enjoyment from the act of investing and watching your fortune grow. Beyond a certain dollar amount it must have just turned into a hobby for her. Kind of like playing skee-ball all day and collecting up a huge amount of tickets, but then just giving them away to kids on your way out of the arcade.
- rb808 8y agoThe real thing you have to consider is will you need the money yourself. If you live long and healthy you will be fine. If you (or your children) are partially disabled by a stroke or car accident you may need $8m just to get by. Or maybe you'll be happy and healthy forever or die quickly at 55. You dont know, its why leaving money in a will is a good way to donate.
- antisthenes 8y agoThe best impact you can personally have on the world is to raise a smart wholesome child in a nuclear that will enjoy life and, perhaps, advance our knowledge a little bit more. And, considering how expensive that might be, I'm not quite sure you'll have anything left for charity. I know I won't.