I'm not saying that what wealthy individuals are already giving is a bad thing by any means. But the statistics do give you pause to think about just how selfless these people actually are. If you look at what Bill and Melinda Gates are doing, that's pretty fucking impressive. It doesn't look like any wealthy Australian is contributing at anywhere near the same level.
The article doesn't criticise anybody either, it's simply pointing out that these people don't exactly need to be lauded for their sacrifice.
I read it the other day, and was genuinely surprised. I don't mean for it to be a lecture; I think it's a good conversation starter.
It is a current matter of debate in the philanthropic field whether publishing data of giving is a good practice in any way at all. There are positives and negatives to it.
Positives
Gives encouragement to others to give. Gives the charity a form of advertising. Feel good factor to the giver.
Negatives
Big noting yourself - just giving to have your name up. Should the motivation for giving to have your name published - should it simply be altruistic? The basic tenet of charity is the benefit goes to the receiver, so if publishing the giving, you have priorities mixed up. The idea that any certain percentage should be given has no basis except being a number made up by the author, it is just an arbitrary basis for comparison. Just because someone gave X% is great, but has zero bearing on others in fact.
I don't argue either way but this is a timely debate topic.
Thanks for asking.
I've just completed some work for a youth suicide related charity. The bill for this (for a paying client) would have been around 1% of my company's annual turnover. I do a few of these a year at the expense of paid jobs.
How about you?
Is the company yours? Or are you an employee?
You have posted a blog post that criticises people for their lack of giving. You can argue its not criticism, but its very thinly veiled criticism, based on back of the napkin research. The blog only looks at the $Dollars given by people. So lets compare apples with apples please:
If you own the company, it means you gave some time to the charity. Comparing it to the blog, that is $Zero, so it's 0.00% of net wealth. You can give it a value if you wish, but these wealthy people also give time not just dollars, so we'd have to add the value at their wealth position to have valid comparison.
If you are an employee, that means you are claiming your work time, your employer has allowed to a charitable cause, as your donation. Your employer has donated that, not you.
Sorry I am not having a go, but I've just turned your workplace donation to a $worthless value, by my own statistical madd skillz. Its in response to a poorly conceived blog post by him that is criticising charity by others - call it what you want but its criticising their values. He also fails to mention the fact that his giving into a PAF (Private Ancillary Fund - not a Foundation) gives him a one-off enormous tax deduction. Funny he didn't mention that we the taxpayer supported his charitable activities.
Your time you gave to the suicide cause is great - keep it up! In reply I also give time to causes, such as gardening charities, tree planting on public land, land rehabilitation and Treasurer for sporting clubs. I also include my children so they learn the good of giving. Many hours and days in these causes.