It makes NO sense to donate to charity until you are retired

Same, my thoughts are that i shouldn't give any money ( my time is fine and i do that ) away until i know how much i will need until my end. I don't know if i am to be the one who get hit by a bus tomorrow becoming paralyzed and every dime i saved away will be needed to continue living with dignity.

However, this only applies to money you would have otherwise saved. Money you would have otherwise spent on booze or excess go ahead and donate.

It makes NO sense to presume that your perspective on how to use your money should be anyone else's perspective on how to use their money. Personal circumstances, goals, and values all influence such choices.

Baltsu wrote:

charities are crap. Those people who are involved in charities have too much free time. They organize events that cost money in order to give them something to do. So they are just inefficient organizations where most of the money goes to administrative expenses. I wouldn't donate anything. Government is supposed to provide the needed services and people pay them in taxes. This is a same kind of an idiotic system what tips are, i.e. mostly an American problem.

Just to be clear here: there is a difference between "charities" and "non-profit organizations."

I work for a non-profit that provides housing, event programming, and job placement for adults with mental disabilities. We only spend 5% of our annual revenue on administration (allocated to salary/benefits). We also have sister organizations around the globe (London, Glasgow, Oslo, Toronto, Beijing, Sydney, etc.) that have similar spend policies when it comes to administration costs.

What I'm saying is that your comment is not only incorrect, it couldn't be MORE incorrect.

As for the OP: many non-profits would do more positive work with $50 today than with $65 in 10 years. I understand your point, but it betrays a lack of understanding of non-profit financial stability.

There are few people on Letsrun who exceed $24,800 in itemized deductions. You are in the minority. So there is no tax advantage. But the returns are much greater than the tax write-offs.

Selfish Altruist wrote:

Here's my thinking. I could donate $100 to charity today. Or I could invest in myself or even put it in my 401K and maximize my net worth. Then once I'm retired, I can give away whatever I don't need. Win-win for everybody, right?

From your own personal perspective, perhaps not. However, if you consider that there are people out there that could seriously use your generous donations right now, then definitely so. I would suggest starting out with a small annual donation and you can always increase as you get closer to retirement or actually retire.

And for the cynical poster who said 25% of all donations go to administrative fees, that is incorrect. There are lots of charities that have less than 10% administrative expenses. Just go to charitynavigator.org or charitywatch.org and pick a quality charity.

What I'm saying is that same $100 I could have donated would be worth $1000 or more if I invest it now and give later, even if I never need that money.

And I know there are charities that need my $100 today, but there will also be charities that need my $1000 or $5000 in the future that I won't have if I donate the $100 today.

Well that makes sense I guess.

Selfish Altruist wrote:

Here's my thinking. I could donate $100 to charity today. Or I could invest in myself or even put it in my 401K and maximize my net worth. Then once I'm retired, I can give away whatever I don't need. Win-win for everybody, right?

I would not have had anything to eat at several stages in my childhood were it not for donations from middle class people in my community. I am thankful there are more of them and less of you.

Fentrekker wrote:

Selfish Altruist wrote:

Here's my thinking. I could donate $100 to charity today. Or I could invest in myself or even put it in my 401K and maximize my net worth. Then once I'm retired, I can give away whatever I don't need. Win-win for everybody, right?

I would not have had anything to eat at several stages in my childhood were it not for donations from middle class people in my community. I am thankful there are more of them and less of you.

If everyone acted like me there would be MORE charitable giving, it would just come exclusively from older people. So your logic doesn't make sense.

Selfish Altruist wrote:

If everyone acted like me there would be MORE charitable giving, it would just come exclusively from older people. So your logic doesn't make sense.

I'm fairly confident that if everyone donated less when they were younger, they would generally donate less when they were older. These are long-term habits and preferences, like reading, running, and getting drunk.

Did you ever consider that if you give now the charities could invest that money, whether financially (probably not) but in people? The returns on the investment for society may be far more than money gained in investing.

Consider the Cat's in the Cradle song. Maybe I should spend a ton of time working now so that I can save a whole bunch of money and retire early, then spend a ton of time with my kids and our relationship will be amazing then, right? Naw, the investment now is worth a lot more than equal time later.

Also, in response to others. Some charities may be mismanaged, but they are by far the minority. Don't let a few bad apples make you think all of them are bad.

If we don't give until we retire, we probably will never give.

The mind that says, "I won't give to charity today because it's better to give in retirement when I have more money" is the same mind that in retirement says, "well, I don't know how long I'm going to live so I need my money today. I'll give it to charity later." They keep pushing their charitable donations further and further back. Then when it's almost time to die they say, "well, my kids with full-time jobs need the money more than starving children or children being sex-trafficked."

Moral of the story is, most people never give to charity. There's also a way to rationalize not giving to charity. Like the dipstick who said 25% goes to administrative fees right off the top. If your heart tells you to give, do it. Otherwise don't. No big deal. People like me exist to give most of their income to charity to make up for it.

Charitable donations can have a great return if you're intelligent about how you use them. Let's say you are an attorney doing basic corporate law and general contract work. Sponsoring a table at some local non-profit's annual fundraising banquette for $2K can easily be enough to lock in a business relationship that will bring in fees that will more than justify the expense.

Donations along with some sweet talking can also land you a seat on the board of a non-profit. If you get on the board of a non-profit that can use your company's services, you just guaranteed yourself a customer that will come to you and never go to your competitors for the duration of your board appointment.

Donating money is a great thing to do if you're smart about it.

health wrote:

It helps mentally to spend time helping others regularly.

You could volunteer your time now (a few hours a week from everyone would go a long way) and then money when you're old and can't spend it all.

sbeefyk2 wrote:

People like me exist to give most of their income to charity to make up for it.

You'll never get me to believe this is true.

Financial guru wrote:

There are few people on Letsrun who exceed $24,800 in itemized deductions. You are in the minority. So there is no tax advantage. But the returns are much greater than the tax write-offs.

Or $12,400 if you're single.

Plus, my company matches the first $5k I donate each year. So, I donate $1, I get $0.24 back from Uncle Sam, and my company kicks in $1. If I like the charity, giving them $2 for a cost of $0.76 isn't a bad deal.

?

libertarian horse-poop

If people put it off (giving), it won't happen.

Avocado's Number wrote:

Selfish Altruist wrote:

If everyone acted like me there would be MORE charitable giving, it would just come exclusively from older people. So your logic doesn't make sense.

I'm fairly confident that if everyone donated less when they were younger, they would generally donate less when they were older. These are long-term habits and preferences, like reading, running, and getting drunk.

Right on, brother!

Bible says our prayers are in vain if we don't take care of the needy (Isaiah 58 is one place).

This selfish attitude is very foreign to me. I can't imagine not giving back at least some when I have plenty and others have very little.

God will hold us responsible if we are selfish.

In my Church we fast two meals once a month and then donate that, or more if able, to help the needy. 100% goes to help the poor. It is a great program that most are capable of doing and helps the giver as much as the receiver.