Trey Smith
[There are ways to evaluate people.] If they are wealthy, observe what they give.Studies consistently have shown that the wealthy -- at least in the US -- tend to donate a smaller portion of their income as do those in the middle class and the poor. While a rich person might contribute $100,000 to a charity compared to $25 that someone like me might give, that $100 grand is comparable to someone of limited means giving a nickel or a penny!!
~ a passage from The Book of Leadership and Strategy by Thomas Cleary ~
The rich also tend to give with strings attached. They want to be assured the money is spent according to their specific directions or along the lines of a particular program that they've developed. Poor folk simply give with the idea that the charity or program will make good use of the contribution.
What could explain this difference in giving? My guess is that the rich often give with the primary intentions of a) lessening their tax burden and b) generating publicity for their "big" contribution. The act of giving for far too many of them is focused on themselves -- what they can get out of it.
For those of us of limited financial means, our chief focus is on helping others. We know what it is like to be between a rock and a hard place. Many of us know what it is like to receive a helping hand. Since we have been helped, we want to pay back the favor AND we want to pay forward the opportunity for someone else to be helped.
[Note: The citation for this post comes from the same paragraph as utilized in Huainanzi Entry 46.]
To read the introduction to this ongoing series, go here.
I accidentally came over a video of Bono speaking very boldly and giving his time, voice and passion to the poor of Africa.
ReplyDeleteIn the same conversation he joked in quite a self congratulatory manner how he and his band mates got paid in multiples of millions for their parts in the iPod adverts.
His display was of good intention and for a good cause but it reeked in self promoting, ego polishing speech and I felt like I was seeing through him.
As valid as the cause is he is apparently not content or happy. He acts happy and vocalizes his title and points to his bank balance but these are not the words and actions of a humble man of charity but of someone who has all the material excess but still a great lack of inner contentment.
He could give financially very highly but I doubt he does in proportion to his wealth and that of the average giver. He probably consolidates his lesser proportion of financial giving by saying he is giving his time or his personality. Though these it seems are given to attempt to find happiness where material excess has fallen short.
I wonder if he gave up all of his wealth to the cause if he'd find truer happiness than when he stands on a stage telling everyone how rich he is? (I think so)
I have a couple of comments here.
ReplyDeleteThere will always be rich, stingy, miserly Scrooges, but at the same time there are many people, sources of great wealth, who do distribute it in ways to improve circumstances. Philanthropy and grant-making has changed a little over recent years, most notably in an emphasis on outcome. The big family foundations (e.g., Weinberg) or smaller ones, like Hawaii's local grocery chain, well-known for its charitable giving, distribute money for community impact, not just handouts. You can't go out and say, "Look, we are really cool, give us some operating money, and we'll be back next year with the same request and a totally pointless annual report." That's no different than bums on the street asking for spare change or state-sponsored welfare to the able-bodied. Perhaps because it was the way the wealth was created, the philanthropists tend to want to see a sound long range plan, whether it's for the local food bank or a university. Why shouldn't there be some strings attached? (Why shouldn't Harry Weinberg's name be on every social service program he has funded? ) If you had Bill Gates's resources, what would you fund?
In my own charitable giving (as one of the "poor folk"), I look closely at the charity: what is their overhead, what programs have actually succeeded? Is it something that speaks to my own heart? Will my contribution actually make a difference in a person's (or animal's) life, or is it just pouring money down a black hole created by some uncontrollable circumstance? Not that I haven't given cash and food to the occasional street person.
My other comment is directed to Ta-wan's:
I'm not a particular fan of Bono's (as a philanthropist or social activist), but how do you know he's "not happy." And why do you care about his "happiness". And why should he be "happy" anyway? Is there a self to be happy?
Although your tale brings to mind Mantak Chia who like to tell people he is the most wealthy, famous Taoist in the world. I suspect Mantak and Bono are both "happy," but they tend to hypocrisy.
I also imagine that Bono knows that even if he did give all his wealth to his cause, it would't change a thing in any long run. The causes of the poverty and devastation are beyond his control.