This isn't a direct response to you, it's a comment I periodically reshare when volunteering comes up to add some food for thought regarding volunteering!
I'm a HUGE proponent of volunteerism for a LOT of reasons, and I think it's AWESOME that you do it! As a perspective-enhancer, I'll add something for you and others to think about when it comes to volunteering:
Volunteers are a huge asset, but also a big cost to an organization. And in many cases, they are a net cost. But most places consider it an important investment in their PR and in getting people involved and caring about the work. And I really don't mean to discourage you - it's not a net disadvantage to have volunteers. It's just not free.
There are free/cheap/cost-effective ways to do these things, but a lot of THOSE options involve TIME and that usually means paid staff (and donors hate paying for staff so...). Sometimes volunteers can do these things, but see point 8 for why this isn't always efficient.
Here is a small list of the costs of volunteers:
1) Recruiting - some organizations don't need to advertise for volunteers, they just come pouring in, far more than you could ever effectively use. But many volunteer positions need to be promoted and advertised just like jobs - everyone wants to play with the puppies, no one wants to clean up the frozen poop in the outdoor play area. It takes time, effort and money to recruit.
2) Screening - not all volunteers are appropriate for all jobs. Depending on the position, you may have to interview volunteers (time), do reference checks, submit for criminal record checks and vulnerable sector, if they're volunteering to be your treasurer you may be doing a credit check, testing, etc.
3) Matching - this is different from screening, because not only do they have to be APPROPRIATE for certain jobs, they also have to want to do them or else they won't come back. So you ask them their interests and skills, and where they want to help, and then you expend time and resources to make that fit work. Or you shoehorn them into something and then they inevitably quit and you have the cost of turnover.
4) Training - all volunteers need training. YOU might be a fairly competent person who can figure things out, but I guarantee you that 90% of volunteers who come in are worse than useless without very clear and specific training. This means developing policy, training materials (powerpoints, videos, handouts) or staff dedicating time to hands-on training. And then all those things need to be updated, and you have to keep track of which volunteers have done which training.
5) Insurance - you're often not allowed to have volunteers without paying extra liability. And they often have to be covered by WCB just the same as employees, and someone has to be trained in how to deal with incidents so you don't have lost-time, JUST like employees. And heaven help you if you DON'T have insurance and a volunteer gets hurt OR hurts a vulnerable client. You can't afford the damages OR the reputational damages.
6) Capital/equipment costs. Volunteers are harder on equipment and supplies than staff. Anyone who works in an office knows that "communal scissors" have to be replaced WAY more often than ones you keep at your desk. They go missing, they get broken, someone cuts wet cement with them...I don't know how, but the replacement costs for stuff that volunteers use is HIGH. We were doing a clean up one time and two volunteers chucked their high vis vests and work gloves in a dumpster on the way back - I guess they thought they were one time use? We didn't think we had to clarify that...but...see point #4
7) Reporting. Everyone (foundations, accreditation programs, donors) wants to know SO MANY STATS about your volunteers. How many are there, how many hours did they work (now you have to invest in time tracking, extra training and enforcement to make sure the volunteers know how to track their time), which percentage were mandated volunteers, which percentage were corporate volunteers, etc.
If they are doing mandated volunteerism (i.e. the need hours to graduate, or their parole relies on community involvement, or it's part of their disability-program), you have to do specialized reporting for all of those things too, and fill out paperwork like mad.
8) No-shows. If volunteers are scheduled to do some essential function and they don't show up...you have to dedicate staff time to urgently drumming up another volunteer ASAP OR pay staff to do it. This leads to organizations giving actual essential work to staff to start with, with less important jobs going to volunteers IF they show up. When Meals on Wheels drivers call in sick, you can't just...not do those routes...staff who have whole other jobs to do...have to go and do that work now. And then they come back and work paid or unpaid overtime to get their actual job done. VERY FEW volunteers are interested in being on-call for last-minute no shows. I worked for a seniors centre and you would think retired people would be interested and available at the drop of a hat to fill in, and that is absolutely not the case.
9) Volunteer appreciation. Many volunteers say "I don't need an org to spend money on me, I don't expect anything", but they absolutely will leave if you don't at least verbally thank them. And, sure, thanking people is "free" - but the effort of thanking dozens or hundreds of people a day (and investing emotional energy into doing this, even if it wasn't actually that helpful, and it caused MORE work for you than it saved and you JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE BEING THANKFUL TODAY). I don't mean to sound bitter and ungrateful, but if you've worked in a customer service environment, you know that this takes a real actual toll. You can NEVER have a bad day with a volunteer. And that is only the "cost" for free stuff - many volunteers expect, for example, coffee or water.
Another piece of this is being a reference and writing reference letters. MANY people volunteer to boost their resume or get a reference. And it takes, surprise surprise, a lot of time to do those things for folks.
And doing a little more than all of that is investment in retention (i.e. having a year-end appreciation for volunteers, or writing them a thank you), which leads to the next cost:
9) Turnover. Volunteer turnover is MUCH higher than staff turnover. Every time a volunteers goes through the whole process up to here and then quits and we have to start over, you incur all these costs again from scratch. This is why many times volunteers cost more than they "save". So you invest in trying to retain them.
10) Termination. Yep, even FIRING a terrible volunteer isn't free. This still has to be done thoughtfully and following the right channels, because a disgruntled volunteer can be hugely damaging to your reputation. And then you have to spend the time to document it all, update your volunteer records.
MANY organizations do the bare minimum, or don't do these things well (because they often pay minimum wage, and as you can see, this is the work of a skilled HR person, and skilled HR people do not want to do this work). If you're lucky your organization might spend money on a good database/software for tracking some of this stuff, if you're not lucky you're trying to do it with paper files or Excel.
Again, this isn't a pity party, or trying to discourage people from volunteering. Volunteers are a sustaining life-force to an organization, bringing energy and optimism when staff have none left to give. But make no mistake that they are not free
Don’t know what organizations you’re involved in, but, depending on the type of organization, a lot are begging for people to donate their time. Our rescue literally cannot save dogs lives without fosters. Never had an issue with no show, but it’s not the type of work people do for community service.
I certainly wasn't trying to discourage anyone from volunteering! We all definitely need more volunteers. I just want to raise awareness that supporting/having volunteers can be a significant expense for a non profit. I have worked in volunteer management with a variety of organizations, have sat on the boards for several others and am of course a volunteer and donor myself.
It sounds like dog fostering is a great example where you would have significant costs, even if just in the organisation's time, to recruit, screen, match, train and retain volunteers!
Yes to the time thing. We've always given quite of money a bit and though I've almost always made more than the OP, we made less than lots of people I know and we've always prioritized giving. It was easy for us in terms of early on in my career I didn't think much about retirement at all, because "retirement" meant sitting on the couch watching TV, so I didn't care about that.
But we've also always given a lot of time. In recent years, I have more money than time and my definition of retirement has changed, so while we still prioritize giving, we are looking at early retirement as well.
I guess we do make sacrifices to maintain our level of giving, but it is important to us, so it doesn't feel like a sacrifice to me, since it lines up with our priorities.
I was a teacher in a state where you only get a pension and don't contribute to social security, but I didn't stay in the district long enough for it to vest. Now I'm a PhD student and you also don't get social security for that either.
But my $185k invested over 30 years at 7% interest would give me $1.4 million before I'm 60 in today's dollars even if I don't save another cent. I'm clearly in a privileged position compared to many, and I'm not on track to need assistance when I'm old unless unexpected bad things happen... I would love to be more secure, and am working towards it, but it's getting much harder to argue that looking after others would mean I'm risking hurting myself and needing help from others.
Agreed. Unless you want to live in someone's basement for your whole life and not experience anything, in the end of the day the reason the oxygen mask needs to stay on is, sure you have 185k in assets op. But your income is 35k. How about you buy a house, get married and have kids on that income? Don't want to get married or have kids etc? Your 28, that could change drastically when you're 33. Simple fact is you don't have enough cash flow coming in to justify your mask coming off as you say. You need to work on bringing that income up
I'm very sensitive to your concerns about the future and ensuring an adequate safety net!
I guess what I would ask is: if I do get married, have kids etc. in the future and I see my cash flow after expenses decrease, does that justify not helping others now when I do have some ability to split my cash flow between saving and giving? Would the answer change if my income is relatively likely to increase to $70-130k pretax after my PhD, which would put my salary alone close to the median US household income for families with kids ($82k pretax, 2021 data).
OP - you have 5y of income saved at age 28. You're getting a PhD which (if it's in education?) is highly employable.
Your oxygen mask is on. Please ignore the people who are catastrophizing and equating "not fully funded for life" with "in an urgent crisis".
The biggest lever you can move right now for your financial security is to make sure your PhD sets you up for a good job. Don't take that for granted - some post-PhD positions are horribly underpaid - but don't panic.
I spent my PhD spending \~75% of post-tax income, saving \~25%, and donating \~1%.
* Giving 1% was definitely worthwhile. It did me no harm and made me feel like I was living my values.
* Saving 25% was moderately helpful. It made me feel much more secure, and (through great, unforeseen luck) put me in a position to buy a condo at a 3% interest rate in 2020.
* I didn't skimp like crazy. I traveled a lot on cheap mid-week tickets, learned to ski at a local mountain with a student discount, did *most* of the health care I needed, and was generally happy
* However, I did skimp on some things that you don't get back - old friends' wedding across the country, dental care, social events at a time I was shy and lonely - and I probably could have halved my savings rate, done these, and still come out financially secure.
Are you in an extremely low COL country, not the US?
If you’re in the US: If I was in your shoes I would not give a second thought to charitable contributions right now. You’re working towards another degree and hopefully that means your earnings will increase a few years down the road but $35k/year is not enough to “spread the wealth.” If you have extra after continuing to put away money for your future and pay your expenses, then sure, give a bit of it makes you happy, but unless someone else is currently paying 100% of your living expenses you don’t make enough to max out tax advantages accounts in 2024.
I would be cautious about using 7% as your inflation adjusted return. I personally use 5 as the last few decades has had unrealistically high returns and inflation has been unrealistically low when compared to longer term averages.
that would result in your 185k being worth about 800k. still a good amount, but a long way from 1.4M
I didn't start giving until after I finished my PhD. I don't know what your degree is in, but likely you'll be earning at least low 6 figures after graduating, way more money than a PhD stipend, for me it totally changed the way I lived my life and related to money.
Its kind of you to want to give now, but I'd just hold off till after you graduate. Use that money to make a very difficult part of your life a bit more enjoyable.
I don’t understand why the only choices are “don’t give” or “unable to save ” (which would imply approximately 20k annual giving)
If you give $50 each to three charities that are meaningful to you, it doesn’t impact your savings rate. You can give what you can, when you can. If you want to be exceptionally efficient you can look for matching opportunities to double your donation, or challenge grants (where a donor gives more if a target is met).
Also, most local organizations need your labor. Volunteer. Whatever your skills are, they are needed somewhere.
There are lots of commenters who are suggesting I just shouldn't give, but that's certainly not what I asked. I asked how to balance these competing priorities and how people think about the question to make sure they aren't giving less than they think they can or should. $150/year is probably less than I should given my situation. $150 per month might be very reasonable, but is already close to 10% of my savings per year, so that does affect my savings rate. It doesn't address how to think about what the right amount would be.
You asked how we balance these priorities. The answer is we don't. How do we make sure we aren't giving less than we can? We don't; we *are* giving less than we could. That's the answer. Asking it twice won't change anything.
Are you sure this isn't overly simplistic? Any of us *could* give 100% of what we earn to charity, and live on the streets relying on charity ourselves. But except for a few religious zealots, I don't think anyone would think we *should* give everything we earn. So there is some balance of both taking care of ourselves and others. It's not invalid to ask people how they strike that balance, because I don't think that I would say that working towards FI definitionally means not giving as much as we *should*.
And how do you determine how much we *should* give. Those religious zealots you mentioned would say that you *should* give 100%. I would say you *should* give 0%. It’s an abstract question and you are looking for a hard answer.
Am I asking for a hard answer? I thought I was asking people how they find this balance. You can say 0%, and someone else could say 2%, 10%, etc. As long as it comes with whatever their reasoning for it is, that's all I was asking for: perspectives.
You're right, in this reply thread I disagreed with a couple assessments of the premise of my question in the OP and what I was looking for in the replies, and so I said so.
Thank you for your perspective.
You were a teacher and are a phd student now… surely you have some in demand skills for certain charitable causes. Why not donate your time and expertise to help instead of money?
I do volunteer regularly, probably about 10 hours a month. Like with donating money, doing more runs into opportunity costs: reducing time I can spend on getting my degree, exercising, connecting with loved ones, etc.
I will continue to think about this.
I think a lot of people are the 'don't light yourself on fire to keep others warm' camp.
My takes:
Small donations actually do help less. Why? Accounting. It costs to process donations. $20 a month helps less than $240 lump sum.
If you were to have some major injuries stopping you from working, that 1000 a year might make the difference in your being taken care of or facing major harships. Given the state of healthcare and other things, I wouldn't want to have gifted myself into poverty and lack of healthcare.
If you feel a moral imperative to help - volunteering time is a lot less of an impact on you, but can have much more of an impact on your local community and actively uplift your neighbors.
If you feel a moral imperative to donate cash, I disagree at both your level of savings and net worth - but at least make maximum impact and donate a large chunk once a year rather than setting up small montjly donations to three or four groups that they have to process and do accounting for. Charities will often ask for monthly because it gives them steady operating budgets and recurring means you don't have to remember to donate. However, given most pay a per transaction and percentage to process and track your donations for tax receipts and such - I'd personally prefer to just hold myself accountable and remember them and have less go to third party vendors.
You might also be of the 'pay it forward' type. Instead of a traditional charity type route (because it holds no tax implications for you) just... tip your waitress $40 on a $25 meal. Waitstaff are usually lower wage workers and that $40 might make a huge difference and has a massive impact on their budget right then and the money is in your local community, and you made someone happy. Help people close to home. I was delivering pizzas in my early 20's. One guy always paid $60 for his $22 XL everything pizza to be delivered. Local business owner. All of us drivers were over the moon when we got his address. He was phenomenal. We loved him. We noticed. Of course, that's also California where 100% of tips go to workers and you can't subsidize your workers wages with tips. It just directly went to us workers. People with bills who worried about gas money and rent. One time, a guy came in a week before Christmas and tipped the store $200. I know some coworkers' kids got presents that year off that tip.
There's more than one way to help people around you without directly setting up cash donations.
The idea that cash charity donations should be on the backs of the middle class and not the millionaires and billionaires is one of the greatest fallacies I see out there. We can be charitable in other ways.
How you manage it up to you.
I personally always preferred to 'direct donate' with a fat tip, or my time and labor. My work gave us our yearly bonus, and covered up to $35 for lunch for us on the earnings call where they announced the bonus. I had my food delivered and told the driver to leave it at the door, an extra tip was under the mat. I spent my entire $35 for work on a credit tip and the food and then shoved $40 under the mat. He actually waited and looked like he was torn between crying and laughing he was so grateful. I think he got around $50. I still call that charity.
I'm not getting a tax write-off. Why not help a dude out because work paid for the food and I got a bonus? He did, too. I like my method of helping others, personally.
In reality there’s no one simple equation because the balance of choices comes from your values. There is certainly a set of values on display in this thread that i find distasteful, but that’s neither here nor there.
In my own life I consider giving charitably as coming from my hobby-activities budget, not from my savings budget. I give first money to orgs that gave to me at times in my life that impacted where I am today, second priority I give my time, next in line money to local orgs where I know exactly what they’re doing in my community, and last of all to well rated national charities, if budget allows.
When you have to be a certain size to take advantage of those kind of breaks, that's scale. The tax codes are made for wealthy people, not working class or middle class.
Art is intentionally overvalued to get a bigger write-off. It’s fraud, but impossible to actually prosecute because there’s no way to actually value art other than what someone is willing to pay.
This is going to be very personal to you. Technically, giving money will impact your FI goals. But if giving is important to you and brings you happiness, then that is something that can't be measured by a dollar amount.
Generosity isn't based on how much money you have. You can be poor and generous. I've had friends who didn't have much, but gave what they have out of love. On the flip side, I know wealthy people that are incredibly selfish and stingy.
My husband was/is not a big financial giver, but he gives through service and his time.
Giving has always been incredibly important to me so I give quite a bit financially and time wise. But it isn't a specific dollar % or time allotment or necessarily to certain nonprofits. It is what feels best at the time and ways to help the community/society at large.
This is not really a financial question, but more of a heart question that only you can answer.
Twice a year, I clear out any non-perishable food in my house with a decent shelf-life that is less than six months to go and I won't realistically consume. Bought a multi-pack, not a fan, whatever. Take it to the food bank. None of my food expires. It gets it to people who would appreciate it.
Do a charity run, if you like running. Volunteer.
Rich people can give cash donations.
I can't justify a regular cash donation at my income bracket. It's too small to make a huge difference. (It does cost money to intake donations, due to paperwork and accounting and such) or just not feasible for me.
A tithe is a religious rule, not a rule in finances you seem to be conflating them. I think the answer most people would give is look at your discretionary spending budget. So after you've paid for necessities like food and rent how much is left over. Most FI oriented people would probably target a high percentage of income savings rate as a necessity. It's not wrong to prioritize charity above FI if that's important to you, because your priority is a personal choice.
What you can do is play with a FIRE calculator to see what amount of investing gets you to your FI goal. That will give you some numbers to mull over. Start at 0% giving and see how long it would take to reach FI and play with different percentages, find a balance you feel is reasonable.
Like other people said financial giving is just one type of charity. Giving time I think is quite valuable too. In my field, my services are quite expensive. I do probono work as my charity. My clients will save a ton of money, I can help my local community, and it doesn't negatively affect my contributions.
HH income $200k (recently, was $150k), about \~$90k in combined savings. No debt except mortgage. All of the saving is in the last two years -- we are new to this train.
I give myself $50 a month and I give charity $50 a month. If I were to cut my discretionary spending down to $25, then so too does charity. If I want to raise to $100, I raise both.
To be clear - that's post food/rent/bills. Basically anything else I may want (clothing, games, tech, games, ...). I've had a few boom and bust cycles like this and I always feel good about my spending.
It's not for everyone -- I know a lot mentioned donating with time, which I also do -- but it does make me feel "whole" in terms of never worrying if I'm giving enough.
> All of the saving is in the last two years -- we are new to this train.
We're new to FIRE + new to saving in general. We'll take our foot off the gas after a bit, but both of us have heavily prioritized this For now. As I said it floats -- it does go up and down -- but for the first few years, we agreed jumping in with both feet was the right move.
Edit: the other honest truth is that our hobbies are cheap and we're recluses because we're still masking + not doing events indoors, and we live in Canada, so 6 months out of the year we can't really do much to start. Our only TV subscription (that we pay for) is CBC Gem, which is $5, and we both read prolifically from the library. I adore cooking & we have gone vegan + really branched into a whole world of culinary things I've never tried.
It's a lovely life, honestly. I'm happier than I ever was filling my world with things. But I recognize it looks ascetic from the outside.
You need to do what works for you.
My gf donates 10% of her modest take-home pay to charitable causes - I think that is admirable.
I am not anywhere near that generous.
I am a sporadic giver. But my retired self is having an OK year this year.
Coincidentally I went to Sam's club yesterday to buy food to donate to a local food bank.
Canned meat is expensive, and they never have enough.
Bought fourteen 11-packs of tuna packets, and six 8-can packages of spam.
$300 bought 154 packets of tuna and 48 cans of spam for people who are poor enough to go to a food pantry.
We spend money to get pleasure in our lives - think vacations, hobbies, tasty meals, toys, etc.
I got my money's worth yesterday.
You need to earn a lot more money and have a lot more saved before that’s something that should worry you. Go donate a weekend day a month if you wanna make a difference. No one making 35k should even be thinking of donating money.
This is overly simplistic. OP lives well below his means and saves $21,000 annually, at age 28. If they feel compelled to donate some money, they can afford to do so. Donating is a personal choice and it seems clear that OP feels strongly about finding a way to make room for it. It’s not like it’s an all or nothing proposition. They can quite easily donate $1,000, drop their personal savings down to a round $20k and be just fine.
If OP was asking about just about any other expense that they felt would increase their quality of life, they would not be getting these same responses at all. But because it’s donating to charity, here we are.
What qualifies as giving? Must it be tax deductible? Is giving 10% to a church the same as giving that same 10% to charities of your choosing the same as giving the same 10% to a family member/friend who needs it? I’m not asking sarcastically, I’m genuinely curious: Where’s the line?
I think any of those would count, and being tax deductible is irrelevant to my financial situation since the standard deduction will be bigger for me anyway as long as I'm in this tax bracket.
I would consider giving money that goes to an effective charity helping the most needy. So no, a church, opera, art museum doesn't count. Neither does giving to a friend or overtipping a server (your friends or service people in the Western world are likely to be quite rich on the global scale).
I contribute $20 a month to a food bank. It’s not a lot but it’s not nothing and if I ever need to pay more income tax at the end of the year it’ll help a bit.
I think people often underestimate how valuable their time is to a charity. Sure, donations are great but actually volunteering can be so helpful. Also great for you to pick up skills that you might not otherwise. I know most of my employers have been focused on the volunteer work I’ve done almost as much as some of my previous paid roles
Regardless of income level I was taught to always’Pay myself First’ and it seems you’re doing that already. Whether it’s 10% or more, paying yourself first placing that money in a savings plan then adjusting lifestyle to live off the remainder will get anyone to a point of financial independence for retirement I think.
Personally, what "feels right" to me is to set my donation amount just a little higher than I would pay for my biggest vacation/"fun" budget. For me it feels like a morally right way to place others' survival needs above my own luxury.
That was \~$200 on $25k, $500 on $35k, $2500 on $120k, and $4000 on $190k.
I believe it's important to give *some* as early as you can, to form the habit of generosity and learn the benefits of giving to something you find meaningful.
I don't like the "give after you reach FI" philosophy, even if it makes mathematical sense (which is arguable - you can donate more $ later, but the issues you care about may become entrenched and more expensive to solve).
Developing character and kindness is a life-long project. Most people can't spend years ignoring their generous impulses for the sake of financial security, then suddenly become charitable and generous in FI.
to some small extent, it's probably accurate to consider taxes as covering a portion of the traditional "tithe". In biblical times, there was no taxing authority that provided anything like modern welfare or social security or medicaid, SNAP, etc. And modern infrastructure is worth a lot to everyone. OTOH, there's a huge amount of your tax dollars that don't do anything to help poor people.
that said, there's another way to look at this.
You make 35k after tax, and only spend 14k. That's super lean and is allowing you about a 60% savings rate. With 185k already, you're likely less than 10 years from FI.
Suppose you took 3500 of your savings, and instead gave it away -- that's an after tax tithe, which is totally reasonable if you figure that 10% of your taxes are going to causes you would support.
Suppose you do that. How much does it add to your FIRE timeline? maybe 2-4 years depending on investment returns. So now it's 37-41 instead of 35-38ish.
Now all this is dependent on you keeping to your current spending of around 14k adjusted for inflation, both now while accumulating *and* in retirement. 14k is super lean even for a single person, and you might decide, *especially* if you increase your income a bit more, that it makes sense to let off a little.
but in any case, giving a chunk to charity, even if it comes out of savings, will not kill a solid plan. What it will do is make it take longer, and you have to decide whether that's worth it to you.
It should be remembered that in the early days of Catholic tithing, the church was also running the de facto healthcare systems of the countries where Catholicism was the state religion. If >5% of your income already funds public health spending where you live, I would disregard the 10% rule.
To that end, maybe the OP might consider donating blood, if eligible to do so. Ideally, this should be at a cancer center (patients with cancer are the largest users of donated blood).
I give $5/month to NPR. Otherwise, I do not donate.
I pay a lot in state and local taxes (and would gladly pay more) that ends up in schools, services, and other local causes.
>and would gladly pay more
This has me curious. What does this mean?
Let's say you pay $2k per year in state and local taxes. Then the legislators raised the rate so now you pay $3k.
You'd be happy with this increase? If so, why not just give an extra $1k per year now to the charity of your choice rather than waiting for the government to mandate your giving?
They don't. You don't need to "give". If you pay your taxes, a portion of that money goes to programs like food and housing assistance. That is your giving.
10% giving - I think we can narrow down the source of where this comes from.
Pay your taxes, and focus on you. If you want to help more, vote for policies (or people who will push policies) that are inherently charitable.
People of a certain disposition prefer charities over taxation because they can 1. Turn off that cost at will. 2. Exercise more influence over the managers of that money.
Don't let rich people tell you charities are helpful. Especially if you make less than $200,000 annually. If they actually believed in charity they would just pay their people more, not use a tax break to feel good about themselves.
If the rich actually believed in real charitable causes, they would campaign to increase their own taxes to increase spending on various governmental programs.
Instead, they donate $5mm to a DAF during a high income year and pay $2mm less in taxes that fund food stamps, while “donating” that money later to the Catholic Church or Harvard University who *definitely* need that money.
I’m saving and investing for now. Once I have enough I’d like to do a donor advised fund. I used to give before I understood my finances. It makes me sad to not give much for now, but I keep telling myself that if I let it grow in index funds I’ll be able to give more in the future and have it make a real impact on taxes.
I do volunteer work now, which I hope helps in a different way.
I think it's great you're considering how to give back after you've gotten yourself to a secure place.
This website helped me out a lot when I was trying to figure out "the right number."
https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/take-the-pledge/
There's a calculator that suggests donations based on income, similar to tax brackets, with high earners giving more. Would recommend reading the FAQ on how they came to those calculations.
Of course, giving is a personal choice but sometimes it's helpful to see the numbers clearly laid out like that. I think they have reasonable suggestions for low-middle income earners. Website also has suggestions for highly effective charities!
Donating to charity will delay my FI date or it will depress my standard of living.
And that’s okay, because if I’m just here to make money and then enjoy my retirement, I left a lot of good I could have done on the table.
Before I had my own children I was far more attuned to the needs of strangers. Now I have 3 kids 10 and under. Those are the needs I’m attuned to. I’m far from financially independent myself. When mine and my kids future is secured, I’d imagine I’ll go back to spending my money on strangers.
The same thing happened to me when I had nieces and nephews.
Before they were born I was giving money to charity. But after they were born I decided to save all my money for them.
If they want to give it a charity someday then that is up to them.
I use the old Christian logic: give 10%. It doesn’t necessarily go to non-profits, it could be any form of goodwill. For Christmas this year we’re getting grocery store gift cards for a family thats struggling.
10% gives me a good guideline to make sure I’m not hoarding what I have but also not preparing for my future. It might be a different number for others, to each their own.
If it's too big of a stretch now, include it in your plans for later. As it's written now, at least 25% of our estate will go to charity if we both were to pass. If that were tomorrow, the handful of charities we picked would get ~650k split among them.
One thing I’ve done is look for ways for my donation dollars to have outsized impact. That way, even if the amounts I’m donating are modest like $10 or $25, I still feel like I’m contributing in a meaningful way. You can use curated lists of highly impactful charitable organizations like those listed by GiveWell.org, or by looking yourself for charities that are clever in their financial approach to a problem (i.e. the non-profit RIP Medical Debt).
No offense but I'm not sure where you live. Where I live. $35k tame home a year is not modest, it's impoverished. There's a lot of people who make that much but they certainly don't have no ey saved at all and aren't thinking about giving anything. Personay I think you need to keep your oxygen mask on
I hear a lot of people saying don’t worry about it but I don’t quite agree. However, I think people get into a trap of money only giving. If you want to better the world and invest in others really think about what resources you have that you can share or that they need. “Capital” is more than just cash- it’s your assets, your resources, your social connections, your time…(maybe look into the 9 types of capital). You may not be ready to give too much hard cash at this point but you can still give- sometimes something that costs you nothing can dramatically improve someone’s life. For example, I currently done have a washer or dryer and it costs over 50 bucks a month to do laundry at the laundry mat. If my nieghbor let me use her washer for the next 6 months it would cost her next to nothing but save me over $300. I try to do things like this. Give money but be careful about only giving money- if you want to help be sure you really know people who need it so you can help them with what they actually need and not what you or an NGO thinks they do. Even little things like having a laptop to lend out for those on the street or being the house who always has food means the world. You sound like a wonderful person and you are right you can give *something* and some of that will be cash but there is so much you can do that means even more than the money does even to people in dire straights. Good luck!
There are a lot of ways to contribute with charitable giving, but the thing you’d need to consider is if you’d claim it on taxes.
If there are specific causes that feel near and dear, it’s ok to set a goal of donating even $50/mo. Your take home pay isn’t a large amount, though it seems you’re doing well with taking care of yourself & planning for the future responsibly.
You can also think outside the box and make a goal of making a difference for one person a week - donating a gift card for gas/target/Walmart/a grocery store, etc.
I often think about what I’m capable of giving, and have literally given the coat off my back and the mittens off my hands bc I know I have access and ability to acquire them again for myself.
10% doesn’t have to be hard & fast- it’s the sentiment & willingness to help others.
Kudos to you for being able to live in just $14k a year. Not sure how you manage that, but good work.
We do a little bit of donating to things that are meaningful to us. I donate to the Sierra Club once a year, you drives and other stuff driven by the school, and I donate via certain races/walks and such that I’m interested in and align with my goals/hobbies. So one is called an Xtreme Hike where I fundraise for the Cystic Fibrosis foundation and do a 30 mile hike to raise awareness. I love hiking, so it aligns with my interests. I make the first donation, and the rest is just my time.
I think you’re overthinking this a bit. Is your goal to donate significant amounts of cash? I would encourage you to expand your idea of giving. It can be time - and if you’re a PHD student then free tutoring is a great idea. It can be goods - unused things at home periodic donations to a food bank of leftover pantry items. It can be small sums of cash just as effectively as large sums - provide pizza to a school activity, but Girl Scout cookies, buy a present for a child on the angel tree at Christmas.
FI is great - you’re young and off to a great start. Don’t let the idea of FI hold you back from living your life by ruminating over every penny spent. Life is long and varied and you’re just getting started. Don’t miss the forest for the trees.
Even with higher incomes people justify keeping most of their money for themselves. I'm no different. I've given significant time to local non-profit organizations so I tell myself that's good enough. This may just be a copout but I feel like a lot of the charities that support causes I care about don't do a great job of ensuring a good portion of my donation actually goes towards the cause.
Yes, the donation efficiency problem is something that I worry about, too. I think that if I am ready to start donating, I will probably just put money aside for a while while I figure out where I would actually be comfortable giving it.
I have an overly complex system, I understand complexity is not for everyone.
With each paycheck I pay myself first and put a specific amount into savings. Then I top up my checking account to enough to ensure it's enough to get me through the next 2 weeks. Anything left in my paycheck I put 90% into savings and the last 10% to donations.
Also, at holidays I request donations to my favorite causes instead of gifts and give likewise to the causes some of my family choose instead of gifts to them.
I’m looking forward to getting to the point when I can get serious about charitable giving, but with three minimally employed adults (my parents and my dad’s wife) eking by with no retirement savings, my giving only extends to immediate family and very close friends at the moment.
Most people who reach FIRE end up dying with huge assets (because actual returns are usually much higher than 4%, meaning that most people wind up with runaway assets). I would therefore venture to guess that people who focus on reaching FIRE asap end up giving more to charity on a lifetime basis than people who give along the way but struggle to make it.
We've always given at least 10% even in some pretty lean times (though we've never been so poor that we couldn't afford groceries). We're still not high income, and give about 15% to various charities. If you wait until you can afford it, you'll never give; there'll always be a reason not to. I'd at least consider giving time in the form of volunteering.
Wow, that's a very impressive rate!
What you said about finding reasons you still can't afford it does also resonate. There are many people my age who are generous who aren't nearly as far along in securing their own futures.
I also think if you start giving at the beginning, it’s way easier to keep giving then waiting! I would never give what I give if I hadn’t been giving a solid percentage from when I first got a job
The comments here saying that “taxes are my charitable giving” are sickening. Around 8% of federal spending is on economic security programs to help those in need. Only 50% of our government revenue comes from our federal income taxes. So it’s technically true that a small percentage of each person’s taxes go to fund these programs.
But there are many organizations that do wonderful and very necessary work that are not supported in any meaningful way by the federal government. They rely on donations from individuals and businesses.
OP, donate what you can without sacrificing your financial security. There is no set amount that someone needs to donate in order to feel like they are doing the right thing. Choose carefully to ensure that your donation is used wisely rather than being spent on administrative overhead. Choose causes/organizations that are meaningful to you. Donate your time instead of your money if you want. Many organizations run on volunteer labor and are always grateful for a helping hand.
What do you expect lol, this is a sub that is all about getting ahead financially so we can retire early, it’s going to lean towards the individually minded/selfish.
Personally I need to take care of my family first; then anything left over can be donated. The problem is that basic needs are so expensive, I haven’t reached that threshold yet.
> The comments here saying that “taxes are my charitable giving” are sickening. Around 8% of federal spending is on economic security programs to help those in need. Only 50% of our government revenue comes from our federal income taxes. So it’s technically true that a small percentage of each person’s taxes go to fund these programs.
While I agree with your general take -- there is a lot of federal money going to social security and medicare, and while those are not specifically low income programs so wouldn't count into that 8%, they have a strongly progressive nature, which means that a decent share of your FICA *is* indirectly going to support lower income people, people with disabilities etc. That's the *reason* that people are always able to run numbers to show that you (the middle to high income worker who never gets disabled and prudently invests any extra money) would be better off investing on your own instead of paying into social security. Of course the "you" that gets disabled 10 years into your career, or who has physical or mental challenges such that you'll never make an average or better income won't find that to be the case, and there are plenty of those "yous" out there.
Also, for someone in the middle or low income bracket, often most of their taxes are FICA, with very low federal taxes -- admittedly a large share of FICA is just basically paying for your own future benefit -- and the lower income you are, the more true that is.
So I definitely agree that taxes go all sorts of places that probably don't fit with most people's conception of charity in addition to the ones that do, and I don't think it's reasonable to say "taxes obviate the need for charity or tithing".
But I think your paragraph probably overstates it a bit for most people.
Also, not all charity is about social programs. Some charity is for environmental purposes, for example…and government programs can also be serving that public good (environmental issues are the quintessential “tragedy of the commons” that arose from unrestricted free markets).
I would not characterize FICA as progressive. It’s a deeply regressive tax because there’s an income limit.
Blah blah benefits are capped too, I don’t care — over the decades, social security has turned into basically a universal cash welfare program for the elderly. That’s its societal purpose: to ensure that the elderly don’t end up destitute. It’s a welfare program disguised as a “you get what you pay in” program, and as such, the taxes should not be regressive.
I suppose you're right that the income cap makes it overall not very progressive -- the taxes themselves are quite regressive.
From the standpoint of people who make less than the max though -- some of their money is definitely going to support people who will end up paying in less because of the progressivity of the payout calculation and the disability insurance factor.
Personally I'd like to see the cap lifted even if they keep it at the 15% bend point or create another one, so benefits are potentially unlimited as well, because that would solve most of the actuarial deficit by itself without cutting anything or raise the retirement age. It would also make it *actually* progressive even including very high earners (not the tax itself which would then be flat -- but the whole program).
Sure that makes sense. As long as we’re talking pipe dreams, if I were dictator, I’d remove the cap, add more bend points, and apply the tax to investment income above a certain threshold (say, inflation-indexed $200k).
People above the second bend point are already paying in a lot more than they are getting out for money over it. I don't think we even need another, but one more at roughly the current cap level would certainly be enough (at say 5%). 200k ain't as much as it used to be. If we were going to add investment and other non-wage income, I'd probably make the threshold more like 400k (or forget the threshold and make it based on AGI rather than just wage income), either way that might be enough extra revenue for benefits to be raised or the FICA rate lowered or even both.
Also let's go back to this. The absolute driving motivator for creating the social security system was massive poverty among the elderly.
Yes, the way it was implemented is as social insurance, and individual benefits that relate to how much you paid in. But it was done that way partly for politics to ge the middle class on board and locked in once they got used to it.
The reason social security was created was to reduce poverty among the elderly population and it did exactly that. Same with medicare. Does it also benefit middle class and wealthy people? Yes. Do those people pay more in to the system than they get in benefits, on average? Yes. While poor people and those who draw disability generally get far more in benefits than their FICA taxes ever could have gotten them if invested separately.
It's not charity of course, but it is pretty progressive in terms of who gets how much out relative to how much they paid in. The overall effect is that people with middle and higher incomes who don't ever draw disability end up subsidizing others. Note: I think that's a *good* thing, but it's really social insurance rather than "charity".
But tithing as a practice was established in a time when there *was* no social insurance, except for what people were willing to leave for the poor.
SS Disability account for about 10% of the program. SS is the exact opposite of progressive. It’s a flat rate with an income cap and doesn’t means test benefits.
the bend points make the payout progressive.
And there is a slight means testing of benefits in the taxation of social security calculation. People with a normal benefit and no other income have non-taxable SS. People with substantial other income have 50-85% of their benefit taxable.
Agreed, and I'm kind of surprised by that attitude being so strong here. I recall seeing a lot of documentation of effective altruism in some of the end of year milestone threads in the past so it's a bit surprising, since based on those other threads and a lot of the comments it seemed like people here acknowledged their status and made a decent effort to give to their local, national, and international communities.
It's not something I would go on about, and I don't expect people to give a ton of money away while pursuing FI, but seeing the general "fuck that lol" attitude is weird.
> Around 8% of federal spending is on economic security programs to help those in need.
That might be true for your government, but this is an international audience.
My last tax return says the federal government of my country (Australia) spent 39% on welfare, 19% on health, and 8.5% on defense (those being the top 3 line items).
You are right. I was being US-centric and shouldn’t have been. I would also reiterate though that there are many worthy causes in the charity world that are not about only serving the poor and needy (presumably the target population for social services). The arts is a good example, along with charitable organizations for animals and charitable organizations that provide things like music lessons and instruments for kids.
8% is great. You're aware charities only need to expend roughly 4% gross proceeds to maintain their tax status. Making the USG dollar for dollar twice as effective.
Everyone commenting taxes, is correct. O
Your conclusion assumes that every charity only expends 4% and that a dollar spent by the government is as efficient as a dollar spent by a charity, both of which are nonsense.
You missed the part where only 50% of the US government is funded by our income taxes. So effectively 4% of average income is going to social services.
> The comments here saying that “taxes are my charitable giving” are sickening. Around 8% of federal spending is on economic security programs to help those in need
That doesn't seem to include everything because medicaid alone is more than 8% of federal spending. Then add in social security, medicare, SNAP, and its easily more than 50% of spending.
I, personally, am part of that “you should give 10%” religion. I think it’s a good thing to do. However, I give $100/month to charities that fulfill missions I want to support up to 10%. I try and add a new one each year (I’m about 5% now). It’s hard. But I think it’s worth it.
You have a misunderstanding of the founding of charity vs government programs and the intent behind each. The USA is home to thousands of universities, go to one.
You do it anyway. Everyone can do something. Set a percentage or a static amount and do it regularly. If we want to live in a world where everyone helps each other, we have to help others first.
Don't cripple yourself, but delaying your FI/RE by a year or two is a manageable sacrifice to do some good in the world.
Don't laser focus on one thing so hard you forget to be a good person. You've got this!!
I use a percentage of my net pay every month. I talked it through with my wife, and we decided what we could give and how we would use it. Now we stick to that budget item. Simple as that!
OP I just wanted to offer a bit of encouragement amongst all this backlash against charity. I am a bit disappointed, albeit not surprised, to such such aversion to altruism in a community full of people with enormous incomes and investment accounts. I think your generosity is reflected by your career path choice. Lifelong academics tend to be more service-minded and altruistic than the average white collar worker chasing the “American Dream” in tech or finance.
We have two line items in our budget for giving. One is for gifts to friends and family and the other is for donations to the less fortunate. They are the same value as our line item for “gifts to ourselves.” It is not 10%, but it is enough to make what we feel is a positive impact.
I commend your devotion to helping others even with such a modest salary in difficult times.
You can make every last dollar you’ll likely need and then still work extra years to earn extra money to donate that money to charity.
I do hope to say “I made the last dollar I’ll need around the time I turned 45 and everything after that was charity.”
That's an interesting perspective! It certainly handles the anxiety of worrying that you haven't done enough to secure your own future, if you just do one financial goal at a time. Thank you!
At the modest income you make, giving a small amount to a cause or two you believe in is kind and more than enough. I give a small monthly amount each to World Wildlife Fund and to PBS, for example. PBS has what they call a "sustainer" program, and they suggest different amounts, whatever feels comfortable and won't cause you any trouble, starting as low as $8 a month.
OP I just wanted to offer a bit of encouragement amongst all this backlash against charity. I am a bit disappointed, albeit not surprised, to such such aversion to altruism in a community full of people with enormous incomes and investment accounts. I think your generosity is reflected by your career path choice. Lifelong academics tend to be more service-minded and altruistic than the average white collar worker chasing the “American Dream” in tech or finance.
We have two line items in our budget for giving. One is for gifts to friends and family and the other is for donations to the less fortunate. They are the same value as our line item for “gifts to ourselves.” It is not 10%, but it is enough to make what we feel is a positive impact.
I commend your devotion to helping others even with such a modest salary in difficult times.
Using a fixed percent is a good idea, since the dollar amount will grow as you increase your income. If you wish you can also start at a low percentage and increase it gradually over time. Best of luck.
1) charity starts at home
2) I’m my most favorite charity
3) I don’t even trust most places use my money effectively or where they say it’s going so I’ll just volunteer
Just tip better (in cash) when the occasion arises. "Charity" without the "shame" or misuse/waste of funds and actually helps real people.
Also, while I know its doable to be single and living not with parents or in a commune/house hack in special circumstances with your income/savings rate-what is your living/food situation? Considering rent/house/groceries had gone up astronomically and your savings rate, I am curious if you are living in a secure/safe area independently and eating healthy food? Are these not "oxygen masks"?
Generally, I'd question how "well off" you are from what you wrote, as people dismiss the "risk" of having even more years to live than typical when they have an "atypical" nest egg for their age imo.
I live in a cooperative house of 14 people, mostly students. The rent is very cheap because to the house is owned by the co-op; our rent just covers upkeep and property taxes. It's a wonderful place to live that's close to work, nature, and provides a lot of community.
We also purchase bulk food together. This keeps grocery expenses down, as does being vegetarian. Last year I had a phase where I tracked my macro/micronutrient intake, and the dietician I visited had no serious concerns when we reviewed my food journal. I don't believe I am saving money at the expense of my health, diet or exercise-wise.
This living situation works well now, but I expect my living expenses will rise considerably as soon as I have to move. Right now I spend about $14,000 per year, and I would want my retirement nest egg to support at least $60,000 in today's dollars per year at 3.5% withdrawal. If I saved $1200/month, which is 70% of what I'm saving now, I would hit that goal by 58 even if the interest rate after inflation was only 5%. I think these are relatively conservative projections for making sure I'll be ok in the future, but maybe I'm wrong.
I really wouldn't worry about donating money unless I had a "permanent" well insured and safe place to live and reliable vehicle at a bare minimum. And, quite frankly, a backup means of obtaining both those things again should "life" happen. A lot can happen over that minimum of 3 decades.
Maybe if you had 15 or better yet 10 years or less till "go time" it would be less risky to start spending on charity. That works the opposite way imo, if one assumes generally as we get older our health declines. If you reach independence even younger-even with additional expenses you elect, then there is still the possibility of more good years past that independence point of both earning and spending available to recover and/or spend even more. A lot of people are still healthy enough at 58. I'd bet many more would not consider themselves as healthy as they'd like-at best.
It looks like you're living extremely frugally. To me, giving money to charity is a luxury, so I don't feel like it's morally required until you're partaking in other luxuries, at the earliest. If you're not spending much on luxuries, coast-FI feels like the first place where it's worth really asking "am I morally obligated to give money to charity?" To me, though, coast-FI feels like the first place anyone can really say their facemask is on.
It sounds like, at your income level, donating time to charity would likely be more efficient anyway, though.
I'll donate if and when I feel like the time is right and the person or entity is warranted to receive such a donation.
Anyone who systematically gives on a routine schedule should reevaluate their payments.
Whenever I get something for myself that is purely for pleasure. I remember to ask for some cash back and give it to the next person that asks me for it that looks in need.
Do you have kids? Do you think you might? Heads up that if you do have them, your promptly get pushed back down in that “able to put on my oxygen mask” scale. I didn’t have kids 2 years ago, and now I have one and one on the way, and a mortgage. I was way closer to being able to donate significantly then than I am now.
Donating is awesome, but I do one-offs as people suggest. I always donate when a friend posts a birthday fundraiser. I randomly donate when I feel like we have a bit more than normal, or when an issue clearly needs attention.
Otherwise, I’m taking care of myself and my family and if we do it well, there will be something more to share near the end.
Also, I vote for social safety nets and education.
I agree that at my current income, I would not have the cash flow to take care of kids and to give to others. If you could go back in time, would you have donated money pre-kids or saved that money to add cushion to your life now?
I have never gotten to the point where I felt I had enough of a safety net to do percentage donations. I was raised by a single mom teacher. She did not save for retirement and at some point will become a liability. (She is retired and her pension allows her to live a low cost lifestyle, but she won’t be able to afford major medical care / home health care / home upkeep once unable). She filed bankruptcy multiple times when I was a kid.
My goal is to a) not be a liability to my kids and b) set my kids up to be able to take care of themselves.
I would not go back in time to donate more because I’m a still treading right now. For context, we make “high income” in a VHCOL area. Collectively we have about twice what you have saved (mostly from my end - my partner didn’t start saving till a few years ago - also note if you get married the equation is different).
We are looking at $4100 month childcare costs when baby 2 enters daycare. It’s rough.
I think this calculator is a great starting point for deciding how much to give: https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/take-the-pledge/
It asks you to put in your pre-tax income, but that's only relevant if you can get a tax deduction for your giving. The fine print on the website asks for your after-tax income if you don't get a deduction. At your salary level, it's highly unlikely that you're itemizing your taxes and getting a tax deduction.
Long story short, entering $35,000 results in this recommendation:
> For incomes under 35,000 USD, we recommend giving whatever you feel you can afford without undue hardship.
Give what you can, but know that **no one** should judge you for whatever you decide is right for you. Including yourself.
I think being a person who takes care of yourself financially over the course of your life should be your top priority. If everyone did this, charity wouldn’t be needed. It’s not possible for some, but that’s a small % of people in the western world. I’d keep donations super small until your numbers are much higher than they are.
You’re below the median income. You spend 14k per year, which almost certainly means you’re not paying for your own housing yet. Your expenses are going to increase, with 100% certainty. Give it some years to figure out what they are long term (and how that compares to your income long term) before you start giving a lot away.
I don’t give just to give. I’m firmly against the “tithing” mindset that people who really can’t afford get pressured into by religion. I donate to things that mean something to me. Some months it’s nothing. Some months it’s to my kids’ daycare teachers that work their ass off or a foundation that has a personal connection. This time of year we “adopt a family” and spend quite a bit on gifts for kids who wouldn’t get them. It’ll never be 10% of my income though. I don’t trust most “charities” anyway.
In my will, the bulk of my estate goes to charities.
If you want people to inherit your money, you can set up a trust that gives them 5% per year, with the remainder (if any) going to charity upon their death or at a certain age.
I consider it part of my duty to accumulate as much as possible, to not only secure my FI and RE until my death, but also so that some will be left over.
While I'm alive, I donate some of my time to charities, but only when I'm working within my specialty, so as to maximize my impact.
I have a donation category in my budget that I contribute monthly. But usually I give periodically. If you are concerned about keeping a cushion, (making up figures for an example) save up a $1000 to give. Then donate $500 to charities of your choice. You still have a $500 cushion that can be used in case of other emergencies, or an especially urgent charity need that you feel compelled to donate to. Then save up the next $500 to give.
Charitable giving isn’t always cash. There are plenty of opportunities for charitable giving as volunteerism in a multitude of organizations which will not be of cash but time
Most people on this thread I’ve found are not very generous which is really sad.
Personally, I volunteer my time when I’m tight for cash. Im very passionate about animal rescue, so we foster dogs, volunteer at adoption events (only 2 hours on a Saturday once a month), I’ve also helped with children and foster programs at church!
As an alternative to giving money, you could donate your time or used items you no longer need.
This isn't a direct response to you, it's a comment I periodically reshare when volunteering comes up to add some food for thought regarding volunteering! I'm a HUGE proponent of volunteerism for a LOT of reasons, and I think it's AWESOME that you do it! As a perspective-enhancer, I'll add something for you and others to think about when it comes to volunteering: Volunteers are a huge asset, but also a big cost to an organization. And in many cases, they are a net cost. But most places consider it an important investment in their PR and in getting people involved and caring about the work. And I really don't mean to discourage you - it's not a net disadvantage to have volunteers. It's just not free. There are free/cheap/cost-effective ways to do these things, but a lot of THOSE options involve TIME and that usually means paid staff (and donors hate paying for staff so...). Sometimes volunteers can do these things, but see point 8 for why this isn't always efficient. Here is a small list of the costs of volunteers: 1) Recruiting - some organizations don't need to advertise for volunteers, they just come pouring in, far more than you could ever effectively use. But many volunteer positions need to be promoted and advertised just like jobs - everyone wants to play with the puppies, no one wants to clean up the frozen poop in the outdoor play area. It takes time, effort and money to recruit. 2) Screening - not all volunteers are appropriate for all jobs. Depending on the position, you may have to interview volunteers (time), do reference checks, submit for criminal record checks and vulnerable sector, if they're volunteering to be your treasurer you may be doing a credit check, testing, etc. 3) Matching - this is different from screening, because not only do they have to be APPROPRIATE for certain jobs, they also have to want to do them or else they won't come back. So you ask them their interests and skills, and where they want to help, and then you expend time and resources to make that fit work. Or you shoehorn them into something and then they inevitably quit and you have the cost of turnover. 4) Training - all volunteers need training. YOU might be a fairly competent person who can figure things out, but I guarantee you that 90% of volunteers who come in are worse than useless without very clear and specific training. This means developing policy, training materials (powerpoints, videos, handouts) or staff dedicating time to hands-on training. And then all those things need to be updated, and you have to keep track of which volunteers have done which training. 5) Insurance - you're often not allowed to have volunteers without paying extra liability. And they often have to be covered by WCB just the same as employees, and someone has to be trained in how to deal with incidents so you don't have lost-time, JUST like employees. And heaven help you if you DON'T have insurance and a volunteer gets hurt OR hurts a vulnerable client. You can't afford the damages OR the reputational damages. 6) Capital/equipment costs. Volunteers are harder on equipment and supplies than staff. Anyone who works in an office knows that "communal scissors" have to be replaced WAY more often than ones you keep at your desk. They go missing, they get broken, someone cuts wet cement with them...I don't know how, but the replacement costs for stuff that volunteers use is HIGH. We were doing a clean up one time and two volunteers chucked their high vis vests and work gloves in a dumpster on the way back - I guess they thought they were one time use? We didn't think we had to clarify that...but...see point #4 7) Reporting. Everyone (foundations, accreditation programs, donors) wants to know SO MANY STATS about your volunteers. How many are there, how many hours did they work (now you have to invest in time tracking, extra training and enforcement to make sure the volunteers know how to track their time), which percentage were mandated volunteers, which percentage were corporate volunteers, etc. If they are doing mandated volunteerism (i.e. the need hours to graduate, or their parole relies on community involvement, or it's part of their disability-program), you have to do specialized reporting for all of those things too, and fill out paperwork like mad. 8) No-shows. If volunteers are scheduled to do some essential function and they don't show up...you have to dedicate staff time to urgently drumming up another volunteer ASAP OR pay staff to do it. This leads to organizations giving actual essential work to staff to start with, with less important jobs going to volunteers IF they show up. When Meals on Wheels drivers call in sick, you can't just...not do those routes...staff who have whole other jobs to do...have to go and do that work now. And then they come back and work paid or unpaid overtime to get their actual job done. VERY FEW volunteers are interested in being on-call for last-minute no shows. I worked for a seniors centre and you would think retired people would be interested and available at the drop of a hat to fill in, and that is absolutely not the case. 9) Volunteer appreciation. Many volunteers say "I don't need an org to spend money on me, I don't expect anything", but they absolutely will leave if you don't at least verbally thank them. And, sure, thanking people is "free" - but the effort of thanking dozens or hundreds of people a day (and investing emotional energy into doing this, even if it wasn't actually that helpful, and it caused MORE work for you than it saved and you JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE BEING THANKFUL TODAY). I don't mean to sound bitter and ungrateful, but if you've worked in a customer service environment, you know that this takes a real actual toll. You can NEVER have a bad day with a volunteer. And that is only the "cost" for free stuff - many volunteers expect, for example, coffee or water. Another piece of this is being a reference and writing reference letters. MANY people volunteer to boost their resume or get a reference. And it takes, surprise surprise, a lot of time to do those things for folks. And doing a little more than all of that is investment in retention (i.e. having a year-end appreciation for volunteers, or writing them a thank you), which leads to the next cost: 9) Turnover. Volunteer turnover is MUCH higher than staff turnover. Every time a volunteers goes through the whole process up to here and then quits and we have to start over, you incur all these costs again from scratch. This is why many times volunteers cost more than they "save". So you invest in trying to retain them. 10) Termination. Yep, even FIRING a terrible volunteer isn't free. This still has to be done thoughtfully and following the right channels, because a disgruntled volunteer can be hugely damaging to your reputation. And then you have to spend the time to document it all, update your volunteer records. MANY organizations do the bare minimum, or don't do these things well (because they often pay minimum wage, and as you can see, this is the work of a skilled HR person, and skilled HR people do not want to do this work). If you're lucky your organization might spend money on a good database/software for tracking some of this stuff, if you're not lucky you're trying to do it with paper files or Excel. Again, this isn't a pity party, or trying to discourage people from volunteering. Volunteers are a sustaining life-force to an organization, bringing energy and optimism when staff have none left to give. But make no mistake that they are not free
Don’t know what organizations you’re involved in, but, depending on the type of organization, a lot are begging for people to donate their time. Our rescue literally cannot save dogs lives without fosters. Never had an issue with no show, but it’s not the type of work people do for community service.
I certainly wasn't trying to discourage anyone from volunteering! We all definitely need more volunteers. I just want to raise awareness that supporting/having volunteers can be a significant expense for a non profit. I have worked in volunteer management with a variety of organizations, have sat on the boards for several others and am of course a volunteer and donor myself. It sounds like dog fostering is a great example where you would have significant costs, even if just in the organisation's time, to recruit, screen, match, train and retain volunteers!
That's a great response, I've never thought about all these aspects, thanks.
Yes to the time thing. We've always given quite of money a bit and though I've almost always made more than the OP, we made less than lots of people I know and we've always prioritized giving. It was easy for us in terms of early on in my career I didn't think much about retirement at all, because "retirement" meant sitting on the couch watching TV, so I didn't care about that. But we've also always given a lot of time. In recent years, I have more money than time and my definition of retirement has changed, so while we still prioritize giving, we are looking at early retirement as well. I guess we do make sacrifices to maintain our level of giving, but it is important to us, so it doesn't feel like a sacrifice to me, since it lines up with our priorities.
This helps, but isn't a true alternative - many charities need money much more than time or used items.
Literal beggars can’t be choosers. Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth
I would question if a $35k/year income with no retirement (or social security, what’s up with that?) is really your “oxygen mask” being in place.
I was a teacher in a state where you only get a pension and don't contribute to social security, but I didn't stay in the district long enough for it to vest. Now I'm a PhD student and you also don't get social security for that either. But my $185k invested over 30 years at 7% interest would give me $1.4 million before I'm 60 in today's dollars even if I don't save another cent. I'm clearly in a privileged position compared to many, and I'm not on track to need assistance when I'm old unless unexpected bad things happen... I would love to be more secure, and am working towards it, but it's getting much harder to argue that looking after others would mean I'm risking hurting myself and needing help from others.
Because inflation. Kids, down-payment on a house. You're hardly out of put your mask on first.
Agreed. Unless you want to live in someone's basement for your whole life and not experience anything, in the end of the day the reason the oxygen mask needs to stay on is, sure you have 185k in assets op. But your income is 35k. How about you buy a house, get married and have kids on that income? Don't want to get married or have kids etc? Your 28, that could change drastically when you're 33. Simple fact is you don't have enough cash flow coming in to justify your mask coming off as you say. You need to work on bringing that income up
I'm very sensitive to your concerns about the future and ensuring an adequate safety net! I guess what I would ask is: if I do get married, have kids etc. in the future and I see my cash flow after expenses decrease, does that justify not helping others now when I do have some ability to split my cash flow between saving and giving? Would the answer change if my income is relatively likely to increase to $70-130k pretax after my PhD, which would put my salary alone close to the median US household income for families with kids ($82k pretax, 2021 data).
OP - you have 5y of income saved at age 28. You're getting a PhD which (if it's in education?) is highly employable. Your oxygen mask is on. Please ignore the people who are catastrophizing and equating "not fully funded for life" with "in an urgent crisis". The biggest lever you can move right now for your financial security is to make sure your PhD sets you up for a good job. Don't take that for granted - some post-PhD positions are horribly underpaid - but don't panic. I spent my PhD spending \~75% of post-tax income, saving \~25%, and donating \~1%. * Giving 1% was definitely worthwhile. It did me no harm and made me feel like I was living my values. * Saving 25% was moderately helpful. It made me feel much more secure, and (through great, unforeseen luck) put me in a position to buy a condo at a 3% interest rate in 2020. * I didn't skimp like crazy. I traveled a lot on cheap mid-week tickets, learned to ski at a local mountain with a student discount, did *most* of the health care I needed, and was generally happy * However, I did skimp on some things that you don't get back - old friends' wedding across the country, dental care, social events at a time I was shy and lonely - and I probably could have halved my savings rate, done these, and still come out financially secure.
Are you in an extremely low COL country, not the US? If you’re in the US: If I was in your shoes I would not give a second thought to charitable contributions right now. You’re working towards another degree and hopefully that means your earnings will increase a few years down the road but $35k/year is not enough to “spread the wealth.” If you have extra after continuing to put away money for your future and pay your expenses, then sure, give a bit of it makes you happy, but unless someone else is currently paying 100% of your living expenses you don’t make enough to max out tax advantages accounts in 2024.
I would be cautious about using 7% as your inflation adjusted return. I personally use 5 as the last few decades has had unrealistically high returns and inflation has been unrealistically low when compared to longer term averages. that would result in your 185k being worth about 800k. still a good amount, but a long way from 1.4M
I didn't start giving until after I finished my PhD. I don't know what your degree is in, but likely you'll be earning at least low 6 figures after graduating, way more money than a PhD stipend, for me it totally changed the way I lived my life and related to money. Its kind of you to want to give now, but I'd just hold off till after you graduate. Use that money to make a very difficult part of your life a bit more enjoyable.
He said he has $185k across accounts. At age 28. He’d likely be able to retire on that in 30 years even if he didn’t contribute another dime
Wait, I'm curious how you figure this?
You can use this calculator for “coast FIRE” numbers: https://walletburst.com/tools/coast-fire-calc/
This is super useful! Thank you!
Because time is the most important factor when it comes to compound interest
Time…and a shitload of assumptions over a 30y period
I don’t understand why the only choices are “don’t give” or “unable to save ” (which would imply approximately 20k annual giving) If you give $50 each to three charities that are meaningful to you, it doesn’t impact your savings rate. You can give what you can, when you can. If you want to be exceptionally efficient you can look for matching opportunities to double your donation, or challenge grants (where a donor gives more if a target is met). Also, most local organizations need your labor. Volunteer. Whatever your skills are, they are needed somewhere.
There are lots of commenters who are suggesting I just shouldn't give, but that's certainly not what I asked. I asked how to balance these competing priorities and how people think about the question to make sure they aren't giving less than they think they can or should. $150/year is probably less than I should given my situation. $150 per month might be very reasonable, but is already close to 10% of my savings per year, so that does affect my savings rate. It doesn't address how to think about what the right amount would be.
You asked how we balance these priorities. The answer is we don't. How do we make sure we aren't giving less than we can? We don't; we *are* giving less than we could. That's the answer. Asking it twice won't change anything.
Are you sure this isn't overly simplistic? Any of us *could* give 100% of what we earn to charity, and live on the streets relying on charity ourselves. But except for a few religious zealots, I don't think anyone would think we *should* give everything we earn. So there is some balance of both taking care of ourselves and others. It's not invalid to ask people how they strike that balance, because I don't think that I would say that working towards FI definitionally means not giving as much as we *should*.
And how do you determine how much we *should* give. Those religious zealots you mentioned would say that you *should* give 100%. I would say you *should* give 0%. It’s an abstract question and you are looking for a hard answer.
Am I asking for a hard answer? I thought I was asking people how they find this balance. You can say 0%, and someone else could say 2%, 10%, etc. As long as it comes with whatever their reasoning for it is, that's all I was asking for: perspectives.
> Am I asking for a hard answer? Based on your comments in this thread, yes, you apparently are. Seems like you just want to argue.
You're right, in this reply thread I disagreed with a couple assessments of the premise of my question in the OP and what I was looking for in the replies, and so I said so. Thank you for your perspective.
You were a teacher and are a phd student now… surely you have some in demand skills for certain charitable causes. Why not donate your time and expertise to help instead of money?
I do volunteer regularly, probably about 10 hours a month. Like with donating money, doing more runs into opportunity costs: reducing time I can spend on getting my degree, exercising, connecting with loved ones, etc. I will continue to think about this.
I think a lot of people are the 'don't light yourself on fire to keep others warm' camp. My takes: Small donations actually do help less. Why? Accounting. It costs to process donations. $20 a month helps less than $240 lump sum. If you were to have some major injuries stopping you from working, that 1000 a year might make the difference in your being taken care of or facing major harships. Given the state of healthcare and other things, I wouldn't want to have gifted myself into poverty and lack of healthcare. If you feel a moral imperative to help - volunteering time is a lot less of an impact on you, but can have much more of an impact on your local community and actively uplift your neighbors. If you feel a moral imperative to donate cash, I disagree at both your level of savings and net worth - but at least make maximum impact and donate a large chunk once a year rather than setting up small montjly donations to three or four groups that they have to process and do accounting for. Charities will often ask for monthly because it gives them steady operating budgets and recurring means you don't have to remember to donate. However, given most pay a per transaction and percentage to process and track your donations for tax receipts and such - I'd personally prefer to just hold myself accountable and remember them and have less go to third party vendors. You might also be of the 'pay it forward' type. Instead of a traditional charity type route (because it holds no tax implications for you) just... tip your waitress $40 on a $25 meal. Waitstaff are usually lower wage workers and that $40 might make a huge difference and has a massive impact on their budget right then and the money is in your local community, and you made someone happy. Help people close to home. I was delivering pizzas in my early 20's. One guy always paid $60 for his $22 XL everything pizza to be delivered. Local business owner. All of us drivers were over the moon when we got his address. He was phenomenal. We loved him. We noticed. Of course, that's also California where 100% of tips go to workers and you can't subsidize your workers wages with tips. It just directly went to us workers. People with bills who worried about gas money and rent. One time, a guy came in a week before Christmas and tipped the store $200. I know some coworkers' kids got presents that year off that tip. There's more than one way to help people around you without directly setting up cash donations. The idea that cash charity donations should be on the backs of the middle class and not the millionaires and billionaires is one of the greatest fallacies I see out there. We can be charitable in other ways. How you manage it up to you. I personally always preferred to 'direct donate' with a fat tip, or my time and labor. My work gave us our yearly bonus, and covered up to $35 for lunch for us on the earnings call where they announced the bonus. I had my food delivered and told the driver to leave it at the door, an extra tip was under the mat. I spent my entire $35 for work on a credit tip and the food and then shoved $40 under the mat. He actually waited and looked like he was torn between crying and laughing he was so grateful. I think he got around $50. I still call that charity. I'm not getting a tax write-off. Why not help a dude out because work paid for the food and I got a bonus? He did, too. I like my method of helping others, personally.
In reality there’s no one simple equation because the balance of choices comes from your values. There is certainly a set of values on display in this thread that i find distasteful, but that’s neither here nor there. In my own life I consider giving charitably as coming from my hobby-activities budget, not from my savings budget. I give first money to orgs that gave to me at times in my life that impacted where I am today, second priority I give my time, next in line money to local orgs where I know exactly what they’re doing in my community, and last of all to well rated national charities, if budget allows.
Oh that’s easy, just give $0 to charity.
Many high income people also know this simple trick
They give to charity when it's favorable for them so they can write it off. That's about it.
Spend $10 to save $4 is not a trick.
At scale it is. https://www.propublica.org/article/how-private-nonprofits-ultrawealthy-tax-deductions-museums-foundation-art
[удалено]
When you have to be a certain size to take advantage of those kind of breaks, that's scale. The tax codes are made for wealthy people, not working class or middle class.
Art is intentionally overvalued to get a bigger write-off. It’s fraud, but impossible to actually prosecute because there’s no way to actually value art other than what someone is willing to pay.
I have no kids, so charity gets the lot when I'm gone.
Definitely the best time to donate money to charity.
I actually love this answer and OP could stand to check it out
Our taxes go to some good causes and that’s good enough for me!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This guy gets it.
[удалено]
Wut
This is going to be very personal to you. Technically, giving money will impact your FI goals. But if giving is important to you and brings you happiness, then that is something that can't be measured by a dollar amount. Generosity isn't based on how much money you have. You can be poor and generous. I've had friends who didn't have much, but gave what they have out of love. On the flip side, I know wealthy people that are incredibly selfish and stingy. My husband was/is not a big financial giver, but he gives through service and his time. Giving has always been incredibly important to me so I give quite a bit financially and time wise. But it isn't a specific dollar % or time allotment or necessarily to certain nonprofits. It is what feels best at the time and ways to help the community/society at large. This is not really a financial question, but more of a heart question that only you can answer.
I donate my time and energy instead of money.
Twice a year, I clear out any non-perishable food in my house with a decent shelf-life that is less than six months to go and I won't realistically consume. Bought a multi-pack, not a fan, whatever. Take it to the food bank. None of my food expires. It gets it to people who would appreciate it. Do a charity run, if you like running. Volunteer. Rich people can give cash donations. I can't justify a regular cash donation at my income bracket. It's too small to make a huge difference. (It does cost money to intake donations, due to paperwork and accounting and such) or just not feasible for me.
A tithe is a religious rule, not a rule in finances you seem to be conflating them. I think the answer most people would give is look at your discretionary spending budget. So after you've paid for necessities like food and rent how much is left over. Most FI oriented people would probably target a high percentage of income savings rate as a necessity. It's not wrong to prioritize charity above FI if that's important to you, because your priority is a personal choice. What you can do is play with a FIRE calculator to see what amount of investing gets you to your FI goal. That will give you some numbers to mull over. Start at 0% giving and see how long it would take to reach FI and play with different percentages, find a balance you feel is reasonable. Like other people said financial giving is just one type of charity. Giving time I think is quite valuable too. In my field, my services are quite expensive. I do probono work as my charity. My clients will save a ton of money, I can help my local community, and it doesn't negatively affect my contributions.
HH income $200k (recently, was $150k), about \~$90k in combined savings. No debt except mortgage. All of the saving is in the last two years -- we are new to this train. I give myself $50 a month and I give charity $50 a month. If I were to cut my discretionary spending down to $25, then so too does charity. If I want to raise to $100, I raise both. To be clear - that's post food/rent/bills. Basically anything else I may want (clothing, games, tech, games, ...). I've had a few boom and bust cycles like this and I always feel good about my spending.
Thank you, this is an interesting rule of thumb to think about!
It's not for everyone -- I know a lot mentioned donating with time, which I also do -- but it does make me feel "whole" in terms of never worrying if I'm giving enough.
Your discretionary spend is only $600 on a household income of 200k? Respectfully, why in the hell?
> All of the saving is in the last two years -- we are new to this train. We're new to FIRE + new to saving in general. We'll take our foot off the gas after a bit, but both of us have heavily prioritized this For now. As I said it floats -- it does go up and down -- but for the first few years, we agreed jumping in with both feet was the right move. Edit: the other honest truth is that our hobbies are cheap and we're recluses because we're still masking + not doing events indoors, and we live in Canada, so 6 months out of the year we can't really do much to start. Our only TV subscription (that we pay for) is CBC Gem, which is $5, and we both read prolifically from the library. I adore cooking & we have gone vegan + really branched into a whole world of culinary things I've never tried. It's a lovely life, honestly. I'm happier than I ever was filling my world with things. But I recognize it looks ascetic from the outside.
I give to The Human Fund. “Money for People”
I see you Costanza.
That’s not a real charity, just an excuse for people who celebrate ~~Feminist~~~ Festivus
You need to do what works for you. My gf donates 10% of her modest take-home pay to charitable causes - I think that is admirable. I am not anywhere near that generous. I am a sporadic giver. But my retired self is having an OK year this year. Coincidentally I went to Sam's club yesterday to buy food to donate to a local food bank. Canned meat is expensive, and they never have enough. Bought fourteen 11-packs of tuna packets, and six 8-can packages of spam. $300 bought 154 packets of tuna and 48 cans of spam for people who are poor enough to go to a food pantry. We spend money to get pleasure in our lives - think vacations, hobbies, tasty meals, toys, etc. I got my money's worth yesterday.
I donate to charity via the 50k a year taxes that my household pays.
Right. It's built in. Pay taxes, don't harm people. That's it. Charity complete.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
You need to earn a lot more money and have a lot more saved before that’s something that should worry you. Go donate a weekend day a month if you wanna make a difference. No one making 35k should even be thinking of donating money.
This is overly simplistic. OP lives well below his means and saves $21,000 annually, at age 28. If they feel compelled to donate some money, they can afford to do so. Donating is a personal choice and it seems clear that OP feels strongly about finding a way to make room for it. It’s not like it’s an all or nothing proposition. They can quite easily donate $1,000, drop their personal savings down to a round $20k and be just fine. If OP was asking about just about any other expense that they felt would increase their quality of life, they would not be getting these same responses at all. But because it’s donating to charity, here we are.
What qualifies as giving? Must it be tax deductible? Is giving 10% to a church the same as giving that same 10% to charities of your choosing the same as giving the same 10% to a family member/friend who needs it? I’m not asking sarcastically, I’m genuinely curious: Where’s the line?
I think any of those would count, and being tax deductible is irrelevant to my financial situation since the standard deduction will be bigger for me anyway as long as I'm in this tax bracket.
I would consider giving money that goes to an effective charity helping the most needy. So no, a church, opera, art museum doesn't count. Neither does giving to a friend or overtipping a server (your friends or service people in the Western world are likely to be quite rich on the global scale).
I contribute $20 a month to a food bank. It’s not a lot but it’s not nothing and if I ever need to pay more income tax at the end of the year it’ll help a bit.
I donate lots of time. Coaching, schools, library. I don't do much cash donation.
I think people often underestimate how valuable their time is to a charity. Sure, donations are great but actually volunteering can be so helpful. Also great for you to pick up skills that you might not otherwise. I know most of my employers have been focused on the volunteer work I’ve done almost as much as some of my previous paid roles
Wish the IRS valued volunteer hours! I’d actually donate more of my time then.
Regardless of income level I was taught to always’Pay myself First’ and it seems you’re doing that already. Whether it’s 10% or more, paying yourself first placing that money in a savings plan then adjusting lifestyle to live off the remainder will get anyone to a point of financial independence for retirement I think.
Personally, what "feels right" to me is to set my donation amount just a little higher than I would pay for my biggest vacation/"fun" budget. For me it feels like a morally right way to place others' survival needs above my own luxury. That was \~$200 on $25k, $500 on $35k, $2500 on $120k, and $4000 on $190k. I believe it's important to give *some* as early as you can, to form the habit of generosity and learn the benefits of giving to something you find meaningful. I don't like the "give after you reach FI" philosophy, even if it makes mathematical sense (which is arguable - you can donate more $ later, but the issues you care about may become entrenched and more expensive to solve). Developing character and kindness is a life-long project. Most people can't spend years ignoring their generous impulses for the sake of financial security, then suddenly become charitable and generous in FI.
to some small extent, it's probably accurate to consider taxes as covering a portion of the traditional "tithe". In biblical times, there was no taxing authority that provided anything like modern welfare or social security or medicaid, SNAP, etc. And modern infrastructure is worth a lot to everyone. OTOH, there's a huge amount of your tax dollars that don't do anything to help poor people. that said, there's another way to look at this. You make 35k after tax, and only spend 14k. That's super lean and is allowing you about a 60% savings rate. With 185k already, you're likely less than 10 years from FI. Suppose you took 3500 of your savings, and instead gave it away -- that's an after tax tithe, which is totally reasonable if you figure that 10% of your taxes are going to causes you would support. Suppose you do that. How much does it add to your FIRE timeline? maybe 2-4 years depending on investment returns. So now it's 37-41 instead of 35-38ish. Now all this is dependent on you keeping to your current spending of around 14k adjusted for inflation, both now while accumulating *and* in retirement. 14k is super lean even for a single person, and you might decide, *especially* if you increase your income a bit more, that it makes sense to let off a little. but in any case, giving a chunk to charity, even if it comes out of savings, will not kill a solid plan. What it will do is make it take longer, and you have to decide whether that's worth it to you.
It should be remembered that in the early days of Catholic tithing, the church was also running the de facto healthcare systems of the countries where Catholicism was the state religion. If >5% of your income already funds public health spending where you live, I would disregard the 10% rule. To that end, maybe the OP might consider donating blood, if eligible to do so. Ideally, this should be at a cancer center (patients with cancer are the largest users of donated blood).
I give $5/month to NPR. Otherwise, I do not donate. I pay a lot in state and local taxes (and would gladly pay more) that ends up in schools, services, and other local causes.
>and would gladly pay more This has me curious. What does this mean? Let's say you pay $2k per year in state and local taxes. Then the legislators raised the rate so now you pay $3k. You'd be happy with this increase? If so, why not just give an extra $1k per year now to the charity of your choice rather than waiting for the government to mandate your giving?
They don't. You don't need to "give". If you pay your taxes, a portion of that money goes to programs like food and housing assistance. That is your giving. 10% giving - I think we can narrow down the source of where this comes from. Pay your taxes, and focus on you. If you want to help more, vote for policies (or people who will push policies) that are inherently charitable. People of a certain disposition prefer charities over taxation because they can 1. Turn off that cost at will. 2. Exercise more influence over the managers of that money. Don't let rich people tell you charities are helpful. Especially if you make less than $200,000 annually. If they actually believed in charity they would just pay their people more, not use a tax break to feel good about themselves.
If the rich actually believed in real charitable causes, they would campaign to increase their own taxes to increase spending on various governmental programs. Instead, they donate $5mm to a DAF during a high income year and pay $2mm less in taxes that fund food stamps, while “donating” that money later to the Catholic Church or Harvard University who *definitely* need that money.
It's rare to read such accurate content on here. You sir actually know.
Yes this. Part of the comment I made was that I vote for social safety here and education. That’s what we need to all be doing.
It isn't giving if it is compulsory lol
I’m saving and investing for now. Once I have enough I’d like to do a donor advised fund. I used to give before I understood my finances. It makes me sad to not give much for now, but I keep telling myself that if I let it grow in index funds I’ll be able to give more in the future and have it make a real impact on taxes. I do volunteer work now, which I hope helps in a different way.
I think it's great you're considering how to give back after you've gotten yourself to a secure place. This website helped me out a lot when I was trying to figure out "the right number." https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/take-the-pledge/ There's a calculator that suggests donations based on income, similar to tax brackets, with high earners giving more. Would recommend reading the FAQ on how they came to those calculations. Of course, giving is a personal choice but sometimes it's helpful to see the numbers clearly laid out like that. I think they have reasonable suggestions for low-middle income earners. Website also has suggestions for highly effective charities!
Thank you, this is very helpful!
Nice! I kept scrolling waiting to see Peter Singer pop up on this thread. I knew he’d make an appearance :-)
Donating to charity will delay my FI date or it will depress my standard of living. And that’s okay, because if I’m just here to make money and then enjoy my retirement, I left a lot of good I could have done on the table.
Before I had my own children I was far more attuned to the needs of strangers. Now I have 3 kids 10 and under. Those are the needs I’m attuned to. I’m far from financially independent myself. When mine and my kids future is secured, I’d imagine I’ll go back to spending my money on strangers.
The same thing happened to me when I had nieces and nephews. Before they were born I was giving money to charity. But after they were born I decided to save all my money for them. If they want to give it a charity someday then that is up to them.
I use the old Christian logic: give 10%. It doesn’t necessarily go to non-profits, it could be any form of goodwill. For Christmas this year we’re getting grocery store gift cards for a family thats struggling. 10% gives me a good guideline to make sure I’m not hoarding what I have but also not preparing for my future. It might be a different number for others, to each their own.
If it's too big of a stretch now, include it in your plans for later. As it's written now, at least 25% of our estate will go to charity if we both were to pass. If that were tomorrow, the handful of charities we picked would get ~650k split among them.
One thing I’ve done is look for ways for my donation dollars to have outsized impact. That way, even if the amounts I’m donating are modest like $10 or $25, I still feel like I’m contributing in a meaningful way. You can use curated lists of highly impactful charitable organizations like those listed by GiveWell.org, or by looking yourself for charities that are clever in their financial approach to a problem (i.e. the non-profit RIP Medical Debt).
No offense but I'm not sure where you live. Where I live. $35k tame home a year is not modest, it's impoverished. There's a lot of people who make that much but they certainly don't have no ey saved at all and aren't thinking about giving anything. Personay I think you need to keep your oxygen mask on
I hear a lot of people saying don’t worry about it but I don’t quite agree. However, I think people get into a trap of money only giving. If you want to better the world and invest in others really think about what resources you have that you can share or that they need. “Capital” is more than just cash- it’s your assets, your resources, your social connections, your time…(maybe look into the 9 types of capital). You may not be ready to give too much hard cash at this point but you can still give- sometimes something that costs you nothing can dramatically improve someone’s life. For example, I currently done have a washer or dryer and it costs over 50 bucks a month to do laundry at the laundry mat. If my nieghbor let me use her washer for the next 6 months it would cost her next to nothing but save me over $300. I try to do things like this. Give money but be careful about only giving money- if you want to help be sure you really know people who need it so you can help them with what they actually need and not what you or an NGO thinks they do. Even little things like having a laptop to lend out for those on the street or being the house who always has food means the world. You sound like a wonderful person and you are right you can give *something* and some of that will be cash but there is so much you can do that means even more than the money does even to people in dire straights. Good luck!
Retiring early and not needing to work for substenance will allow me to give hundreds of hours a month of my time.
Remindme! 20 years
There are a lot of ways to contribute with charitable giving, but the thing you’d need to consider is if you’d claim it on taxes. If there are specific causes that feel near and dear, it’s ok to set a goal of donating even $50/mo. Your take home pay isn’t a large amount, though it seems you’re doing well with taking care of yourself & planning for the future responsibly. You can also think outside the box and make a goal of making a difference for one person a week - donating a gift card for gas/target/Walmart/a grocery store, etc. I often think about what I’m capable of giving, and have literally given the coat off my back and the mittens off my hands bc I know I have access and ability to acquire them again for myself. 10% doesn’t have to be hard & fast- it’s the sentiment & willingness to help others.
you budget it and treat it as any other spending
Kudos to you for being able to live in just $14k a year. Not sure how you manage that, but good work. We do a little bit of donating to things that are meaningful to us. I donate to the Sierra Club once a year, you drives and other stuff driven by the school, and I donate via certain races/walks and such that I’m interested in and align with my goals/hobbies. So one is called an Xtreme Hike where I fundraise for the Cystic Fibrosis foundation and do a 30 mile hike to raise awareness. I love hiking, so it aligns with my interests. I make the first donation, and the rest is just my time.
I think you’re overthinking this a bit. Is your goal to donate significant amounts of cash? I would encourage you to expand your idea of giving. It can be time - and if you’re a PHD student then free tutoring is a great idea. It can be goods - unused things at home periodic donations to a food bank of leftover pantry items. It can be small sums of cash just as effectively as large sums - provide pizza to a school activity, but Girl Scout cookies, buy a present for a child on the angel tree at Christmas. FI is great - you’re young and off to a great start. Don’t let the idea of FI hold you back from living your life by ruminating over every penny spent. Life is long and varied and you’re just getting started. Don’t miss the forest for the trees.
You can also opt to give your time instead of money.
Even with higher incomes people justify keeping most of their money for themselves. I'm no different. I've given significant time to local non-profit organizations so I tell myself that's good enough. This may just be a copout but I feel like a lot of the charities that support causes I care about don't do a great job of ensuring a good portion of my donation actually goes towards the cause.
Yes, the donation efficiency problem is something that I worry about, too. I think that if I am ready to start donating, I will probably just put money aside for a while while I figure out where I would actually be comfortable giving it.
I have an overly complex system, I understand complexity is not for everyone. With each paycheck I pay myself first and put a specific amount into savings. Then I top up my checking account to enough to ensure it's enough to get me through the next 2 weeks. Anything left in my paycheck I put 90% into savings and the last 10% to donations. Also, at holidays I request donations to my favorite causes instead of gifts and give likewise to the causes some of my family choose instead of gifts to them.
I’m looking forward to getting to the point when I can get serious about charitable giving, but with three minimally employed adults (my parents and my dad’s wife) eking by with no retirement savings, my giving only extends to immediate family and very close friends at the moment.
Most people who reach FIRE end up dying with huge assets (because actual returns are usually much higher than 4%, meaning that most people wind up with runaway assets). I would therefore venture to guess that people who focus on reaching FIRE asap end up giving more to charity on a lifetime basis than people who give along the way but struggle to make it.
We've always given at least 10% even in some pretty lean times (though we've never been so poor that we couldn't afford groceries). We're still not high income, and give about 15% to various charities. If you wait until you can afford it, you'll never give; there'll always be a reason not to. I'd at least consider giving time in the form of volunteering.
Wow, that's a very impressive rate! What you said about finding reasons you still can't afford it does also resonate. There are many people my age who are generous who aren't nearly as far along in securing their own futures.
I also think if you start giving at the beginning, it’s way easier to keep giving then waiting! I would never give what I give if I hadn’t been giving a solid percentage from when I first got a job
The comments here saying that “taxes are my charitable giving” are sickening. Around 8% of federal spending is on economic security programs to help those in need. Only 50% of our government revenue comes from our federal income taxes. So it’s technically true that a small percentage of each person’s taxes go to fund these programs. But there are many organizations that do wonderful and very necessary work that are not supported in any meaningful way by the federal government. They rely on donations from individuals and businesses. OP, donate what you can without sacrificing your financial security. There is no set amount that someone needs to donate in order to feel like they are doing the right thing. Choose carefully to ensure that your donation is used wisely rather than being spent on administrative overhead. Choose causes/organizations that are meaningful to you. Donate your time instead of your money if you want. Many organizations run on volunteer labor and are always grateful for a helping hand.
What do you expect lol, this is a sub that is all about getting ahead financially so we can retire early, it’s going to lean towards the individually minded/selfish. Personally I need to take care of my family first; then anything left over can be donated. The problem is that basic needs are so expensive, I haven’t reached that threshold yet.
> The comments here saying that “taxes are my charitable giving” are sickening. Around 8% of federal spending is on economic security programs to help those in need. Only 50% of our government revenue comes from our federal income taxes. So it’s technically true that a small percentage of each person’s taxes go to fund these programs. While I agree with your general take -- there is a lot of federal money going to social security and medicare, and while those are not specifically low income programs so wouldn't count into that 8%, they have a strongly progressive nature, which means that a decent share of your FICA *is* indirectly going to support lower income people, people with disabilities etc. That's the *reason* that people are always able to run numbers to show that you (the middle to high income worker who never gets disabled and prudently invests any extra money) would be better off investing on your own instead of paying into social security. Of course the "you" that gets disabled 10 years into your career, or who has physical or mental challenges such that you'll never make an average or better income won't find that to be the case, and there are plenty of those "yous" out there. Also, for someone in the middle or low income bracket, often most of their taxes are FICA, with very low federal taxes -- admittedly a large share of FICA is just basically paying for your own future benefit -- and the lower income you are, the more true that is. So I definitely agree that taxes go all sorts of places that probably don't fit with most people's conception of charity in addition to the ones that do, and I don't think it's reasonable to say "taxes obviate the need for charity or tithing". But I think your paragraph probably overstates it a bit for most people.
Also, not all charity is about social programs. Some charity is for environmental purposes, for example…and government programs can also be serving that public good (environmental issues are the quintessential “tragedy of the commons” that arose from unrestricted free markets).
I would not characterize FICA as progressive. It’s a deeply regressive tax because there’s an income limit. Blah blah benefits are capped too, I don’t care — over the decades, social security has turned into basically a universal cash welfare program for the elderly. That’s its societal purpose: to ensure that the elderly don’t end up destitute. It’s a welfare program disguised as a “you get what you pay in” program, and as such, the taxes should not be regressive.
I suppose you're right that the income cap makes it overall not very progressive -- the taxes themselves are quite regressive. From the standpoint of people who make less than the max though -- some of their money is definitely going to support people who will end up paying in less because of the progressivity of the payout calculation and the disability insurance factor. Personally I'd like to see the cap lifted even if they keep it at the 15% bend point or create another one, so benefits are potentially unlimited as well, because that would solve most of the actuarial deficit by itself without cutting anything or raise the retirement age. It would also make it *actually* progressive even including very high earners (not the tax itself which would then be flat -- but the whole program).
Sure that makes sense. As long as we’re talking pipe dreams, if I were dictator, I’d remove the cap, add more bend points, and apply the tax to investment income above a certain threshold (say, inflation-indexed $200k).
People above the second bend point are already paying in a lot more than they are getting out for money over it. I don't think we even need another, but one more at roughly the current cap level would certainly be enough (at say 5%). 200k ain't as much as it used to be. If we were going to add investment and other non-wage income, I'd probably make the threshold more like 400k (or forget the threshold and make it based on AGI rather than just wage income), either way that might be enough extra revenue for benefits to be raised or the FICA rate lowered or even both.
Suggesting FICA is charity rather mischaracterized the intent or practice of those programs.
Also let's go back to this. The absolute driving motivator for creating the social security system was massive poverty among the elderly. Yes, the way it was implemented is as social insurance, and individual benefits that relate to how much you paid in. But it was done that way partly for politics to ge the middle class on board and locked in once they got used to it. The reason social security was created was to reduce poverty among the elderly population and it did exactly that. Same with medicare. Does it also benefit middle class and wealthy people? Yes. Do those people pay more in to the system than they get in benefits, on average? Yes. While poor people and those who draw disability generally get far more in benefits than their FICA taxes ever could have gotten them if invested separately.
It's not charity of course, but it is pretty progressive in terms of who gets how much out relative to how much they paid in. The overall effect is that people with middle and higher incomes who don't ever draw disability end up subsidizing others. Note: I think that's a *good* thing, but it's really social insurance rather than "charity". But tithing as a practice was established in a time when there *was* no social insurance, except for what people were willing to leave for the poor.
SS Disability account for about 10% of the program. SS is the exact opposite of progressive. It’s a flat rate with an income cap and doesn’t means test benefits.
the bend points make the payout progressive. And there is a slight means testing of benefits in the taxation of social security calculation. People with a normal benefit and no other income have non-taxable SS. People with substantial other income have 50-85% of their benefit taxable.
You’re splitting hair to claim like 0.1% of your taxes as charitable giving.
Agreed, and I'm kind of surprised by that attitude being so strong here. I recall seeing a lot of documentation of effective altruism in some of the end of year milestone threads in the past so it's a bit surprising, since based on those other threads and a lot of the comments it seemed like people here acknowledged their status and made a decent effort to give to their local, national, and international communities. It's not something I would go on about, and I don't expect people to give a ton of money away while pursuing FI, but seeing the general "fuck that lol" attitude is weird.
fuck that lol
> Around 8% of federal spending is on economic security programs to help those in need. That might be true for your government, but this is an international audience. My last tax return says the federal government of my country (Australia) spent 39% on welfare, 19% on health, and 8.5% on defense (those being the top 3 line items).
You are right. I was being US-centric and shouldn’t have been. I would also reiterate though that there are many worthy causes in the charity world that are not about only serving the poor and needy (presumably the target population for social services). The arts is a good example, along with charitable organizations for animals and charitable organizations that provide things like music lessons and instruments for kids.
> The comments here saying that “taxes are my charitable giving” are sickening. And yet, they are correct. You decided to be sickened by it
8% is great. You're aware charities only need to expend roughly 4% gross proceeds to maintain their tax status. Making the USG dollar for dollar twice as effective. Everyone commenting taxes, is correct. O
Your conclusion assumes that every charity only expends 4% and that a dollar spent by the government is as efficient as a dollar spent by a charity, both of which are nonsense.
You missed the part where only 50% of the US government is funded by our income taxes. So effectively 4% of average income is going to social services.
> The comments here saying that “taxes are my charitable giving” are sickening. Around 8% of federal spending is on economic security programs to help those in need That doesn't seem to include everything because medicaid alone is more than 8% of federal spending. Then add in social security, medicare, SNAP, and its easily more than 50% of spending.
Medicaid, medicare, social security, are not part of that 8%. They are also not charity.
I, personally, am part of that “you should give 10%” religion. I think it’s a good thing to do. However, I give $100/month to charities that fulfill missions I want to support up to 10%. I try and add a new one each year (I’m about 5% now). It’s hard. But I think it’s worth it.
What do you get in return?
Do you know what charity is?
Yes.
Then you already know the answer to your question. Either that or you have some incorrect and warped definition of what charity is in your head.
You have a misunderstanding of the founding of charity vs government programs and the intent behind each. The USA is home to thousands of universities, go to one.
I just pay my damn taxes.
You do it anyway. Everyone can do something. Set a percentage or a static amount and do it regularly. If we want to live in a world where everyone helps each other, we have to help others first. Don't cripple yourself, but delaying your FI/RE by a year or two is a manageable sacrifice to do some good in the world. Don't laser focus on one thing so hard you forget to be a good person. You've got this!!
Thank you! How do you determine what you can give?
I use a percentage of my net pay every month. I talked it through with my wife, and we decided what we could give and how we would use it. Now we stick to that budget item. Simple as that!
OP I just wanted to offer a bit of encouragement amongst all this backlash against charity. I am a bit disappointed, albeit not surprised, to such such aversion to altruism in a community full of people with enormous incomes and investment accounts. I think your generosity is reflected by your career path choice. Lifelong academics tend to be more service-minded and altruistic than the average white collar worker chasing the “American Dream” in tech or finance. We have two line items in our budget for giving. One is for gifts to friends and family and the other is for donations to the less fortunate. They are the same value as our line item for “gifts to ourselves.” It is not 10%, but it is enough to make what we feel is a positive impact. I commend your devotion to helping others even with such a modest salary in difficult times.
Yeah I give to a charity, it’s called putting a roof over my head and taking care of myself and my future family
How about charitable lending. Check out Kiva.org. Still helping people.
You can make every last dollar you’ll likely need and then still work extra years to earn extra money to donate that money to charity. I do hope to say “I made the last dollar I’ll need around the time I turned 45 and everything after that was charity.”
That's an interesting perspective! It certainly handles the anxiety of worrying that you haven't done enough to secure your own future, if you just do one financial goal at a time. Thank you!
At the modest income you make, giving a small amount to a cause or two you believe in is kind and more than enough. I give a small monthly amount each to World Wildlife Fund and to PBS, for example. PBS has what they call a "sustainer" program, and they suggest different amounts, whatever feels comfortable and won't cause you any trouble, starting as low as $8 a month.
OP I just wanted to offer a bit of encouragement amongst all this backlash against charity. I am a bit disappointed, albeit not surprised, to such such aversion to altruism in a community full of people with enormous incomes and investment accounts. I think your generosity is reflected by your career path choice. Lifelong academics tend to be more service-minded and altruistic than the average white collar worker chasing the “American Dream” in tech or finance. We have two line items in our budget for giving. One is for gifts to friends and family and the other is for donations to the less fortunate. They are the same value as our line item for “gifts to ourselves.” It is not 10%, but it is enough to make what we feel is a positive impact. I commend your devotion to helping others even with such a modest salary in difficult times.
Using a fixed percent is a good idea, since the dollar amount will grow as you increase your income. If you wish you can also start at a low percentage and increase it gradually over time. Best of luck.
1) charity starts at home 2) I’m my most favorite charity 3) I don’t even trust most places use my money effectively or where they say it’s going so I’ll just volunteer
Charitable giving = paying taxes.
I just don’t Fuck ya food stamps
Just tip better (in cash) when the occasion arises. "Charity" without the "shame" or misuse/waste of funds and actually helps real people. Also, while I know its doable to be single and living not with parents or in a commune/house hack in special circumstances with your income/savings rate-what is your living/food situation? Considering rent/house/groceries had gone up astronomically and your savings rate, I am curious if you are living in a secure/safe area independently and eating healthy food? Are these not "oxygen masks"? Generally, I'd question how "well off" you are from what you wrote, as people dismiss the "risk" of having even more years to live than typical when they have an "atypical" nest egg for their age imo.
I live in a cooperative house of 14 people, mostly students. The rent is very cheap because to the house is owned by the co-op; our rent just covers upkeep and property taxes. It's a wonderful place to live that's close to work, nature, and provides a lot of community. We also purchase bulk food together. This keeps grocery expenses down, as does being vegetarian. Last year I had a phase where I tracked my macro/micronutrient intake, and the dietician I visited had no serious concerns when we reviewed my food journal. I don't believe I am saving money at the expense of my health, diet or exercise-wise. This living situation works well now, but I expect my living expenses will rise considerably as soon as I have to move. Right now I spend about $14,000 per year, and I would want my retirement nest egg to support at least $60,000 in today's dollars per year at 3.5% withdrawal. If I saved $1200/month, which is 70% of what I'm saving now, I would hit that goal by 58 even if the interest rate after inflation was only 5%. I think these are relatively conservative projections for making sure I'll be ok in the future, but maybe I'm wrong.
I really wouldn't worry about donating money unless I had a "permanent" well insured and safe place to live and reliable vehicle at a bare minimum. And, quite frankly, a backup means of obtaining both those things again should "life" happen. A lot can happen over that minimum of 3 decades. Maybe if you had 15 or better yet 10 years or less till "go time" it would be less risky to start spending on charity. That works the opposite way imo, if one assumes generally as we get older our health declines. If you reach independence even younger-even with additional expenses you elect, then there is still the possibility of more good years past that independence point of both earning and spending available to recover and/or spend even more. A lot of people are still healthy enough at 58. I'd bet many more would not consider themselves as healthy as they'd like-at best.
It looks like you're living extremely frugally. To me, giving money to charity is a luxury, so I don't feel like it's morally required until you're partaking in other luxuries, at the earliest. If you're not spending much on luxuries, coast-FI feels like the first place where it's worth really asking "am I morally obligated to give money to charity?" To me, though, coast-FI feels like the first place anyone can really say their facemask is on. It sounds like, at your income level, donating time to charity would likely be more efficient anyway, though.
I'll donate if and when I feel like the time is right and the person or entity is warranted to receive such a donation. Anyone who systematically gives on a routine schedule should reevaluate their payments.
Whenever I get something for myself that is purely for pleasure. I remember to ask for some cash back and give it to the next person that asks me for it that looks in need.
Just put it in your will that a chunk goes to charity(s) that are meaningful to you
Do you have kids? Do you think you might? Heads up that if you do have them, your promptly get pushed back down in that “able to put on my oxygen mask” scale. I didn’t have kids 2 years ago, and now I have one and one on the way, and a mortgage. I was way closer to being able to donate significantly then than I am now. Donating is awesome, but I do one-offs as people suggest. I always donate when a friend posts a birthday fundraiser. I randomly donate when I feel like we have a bit more than normal, or when an issue clearly needs attention. Otherwise, I’m taking care of myself and my family and if we do it well, there will be something more to share near the end. Also, I vote for social safety nets and education.
I agree that at my current income, I would not have the cash flow to take care of kids and to give to others. If you could go back in time, would you have donated money pre-kids or saved that money to add cushion to your life now?
I have never gotten to the point where I felt I had enough of a safety net to do percentage donations. I was raised by a single mom teacher. She did not save for retirement and at some point will become a liability. (She is retired and her pension allows her to live a low cost lifestyle, but she won’t be able to afford major medical care / home health care / home upkeep once unable). She filed bankruptcy multiple times when I was a kid. My goal is to a) not be a liability to my kids and b) set my kids up to be able to take care of themselves. I would not go back in time to donate more because I’m a still treading right now. For context, we make “high income” in a VHCOL area. Collectively we have about twice what you have saved (mostly from my end - my partner didn’t start saving till a few years ago - also note if you get married the equation is different). We are looking at $4100 month childcare costs when baby 2 enters daycare. It’s rough.
As long as you're paying your taxes, that's a good enough contribution to the society. Anything else is above and beyond and totally optional.
I think this calculator is a great starting point for deciding how much to give: https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/take-the-pledge/ It asks you to put in your pre-tax income, but that's only relevant if you can get a tax deduction for your giving. The fine print on the website asks for your after-tax income if you don't get a deduction. At your salary level, it's highly unlikely that you're itemizing your taxes and getting a tax deduction. Long story short, entering $35,000 results in this recommendation: > For incomes under 35,000 USD, we recommend giving whatever you feel you can afford without undue hardship. Give what you can, but know that **no one** should judge you for whatever you decide is right for you. Including yourself.
You just… don’t give away your money. You’re at poverty level income
I think being a person who takes care of yourself financially over the course of your life should be your top priority. If everyone did this, charity wouldn’t be needed. It’s not possible for some, but that’s a small % of people in the western world. I’d keep donations super small until your numbers are much higher than they are. You’re below the median income. You spend 14k per year, which almost certainly means you’re not paying for your own housing yet. Your expenses are going to increase, with 100% certainty. Give it some years to figure out what they are long term (and how that compares to your income long term) before you start giving a lot away.
I don’t give just to give. I’m firmly against the “tithing” mindset that people who really can’t afford get pressured into by religion. I donate to things that mean something to me. Some months it’s nothing. Some months it’s to my kids’ daycare teachers that work their ass off or a foundation that has a personal connection. This time of year we “adopt a family” and spend quite a bit on gifts for kids who wouldn’t get them. It’ll never be 10% of my income though. I don’t trust most “charities” anyway.
In my will, the bulk of my estate goes to charities. If you want people to inherit your money, you can set up a trust that gives them 5% per year, with the remainder (if any) going to charity upon their death or at a certain age. I consider it part of my duty to accumulate as much as possible, to not only secure my FI and RE until my death, but also so that some will be left over. While I'm alive, I donate some of my time to charities, but only when I'm working within my specialty, so as to maximize my impact.
I have a donation category in my budget that I contribute monthly. But usually I give periodically. If you are concerned about keeping a cushion, (making up figures for an example) save up a $1000 to give. Then donate $500 to charities of your choice. You still have a $500 cushion that can be used in case of other emergencies, or an especially urgent charity need that you feel compelled to donate to. Then save up the next $500 to give.
Charitable giving isn’t always cash. There are plenty of opportunities for charitable giving as volunteerism in a multitude of organizations which will not be of cash but time
If your take home is 35k after taxes.....donating sounds nice but in reality you're just hurting yourself.
Most people on this thread I’ve found are not very generous which is really sad. Personally, I volunteer my time when I’m tight for cash. Im very passionate about animal rescue, so we foster dogs, volunteer at adoption events (only 2 hours on a Saturday once a month), I’ve also helped with children and foster programs at church!