I'm guessing at someone else's motives here. These aren't necessarily my feelings... > 1. I don't see how it would be hypocritical. If you loved giving, you'd

I'm guessing at someone else's motives here. These aren't necessarily my feelings... > 1. I don't see how it would be hypocritical. If you loved giving, you'd give everything you owned. To stand up and say "I love to give" when you have no intention of giving 100% to charity is hypocritical. You don't love to give, you're just buying attention. > 2. It should steal credit form the recipient. The money is what makes charities work, more than the work in itself. Depending on the charity, it's the people who donate their time that are the valuable ones. In any case, giving half a percent of your annual income is hardly backbreaking labor. To the obscenely wealthy, its often just a tax write-off. It's valuable to the charity but less of a sacrifice than others are making. You're getting re-rewarded for your wealth, while others who are poorer are giving more (as a percentage) and receiving less. Hardly a charitable distribution of gratitude. > 3. What's so great about selfless giving? If donations can increase by publishing the donor's name, so be it! Is there even a single downside to selfish giving? Money is money, no matter the intent. Jobs was a Buddhist and selfless giving without receiving anything in return is considered a valuable trait to Buddhists (true humility). Otherwise it's not giving, it's more receiving.