Charity And Philanthropy

When my children were young I gave them allowances. That's the norm, isn't it? I stipulated, however, how the money was to be used: half could go as spending money, a quarter was to be savings, and the remaining quarter was for tzedakah. That's charity. No “earnings” wholly belonged to them. From the first time they received an “income” they knew that they had a responsibility to share it with those not so fortunate. Helping others is a never ending duty. Even now, every morning at religious services I set aside money for tzedakah. It has nothing to do with other charity I give, but is a daily obligation.

Supporting the less fortunate is a religious obligation that derives, for western faiths, from the Bible (though I'm certain the same view is a part of eastern cultures as well). According to Deuteronomy (11:15), For the poor shall never cease out of the land; therefore I command thee saying: “Thou shall surely open thy hand unto they poor and needy brother, in thy land.” (Jewish Publication Society, 1951) Although tithing is a way of life among many, especially Mormons, initially it was primarily for the support of the Levites who were caring for the Temple when it existed. In Judaism the Rabbis made it clear however that, even though the Temple no longer existed, we were all responsible for supporting the needy. That's what charity is all about. Indeed, the poor themselves were obliged to set aside a portion of the funds they received as charity for the support of those even less fortunate than themselves.

Philanthropy, however, is different. It is practiced, for the most part, by those with large incomes – though even those of modest means can participate – for the goal of philanthropy is to establish means to help communities, rather than individuals, although individuals will benefit from the efforts. A philanthropist may support a university, a hospital, an orchestra, or some similar kind of endeavor. Andrew Carnegie, for example, established libraries around the United States while Bill Gates funds organizations dedicated to improve health care globally. When I was in college – a long time ago – we joked about the plaques that decorated virtually everything around us, whether buildings or microscopes, and which attested to the generosity of the philanthropists who made our education possible. They didn't give us money, but they aided us as we learned how to earn our own. And that philanthropy is the highest form of charity. Maimonides compiled a list of charitable acts in order of their significance and the highest was Giving money, a loan, your time, or whatever else it takes to enable an individual to be self reliant. That's the way the American Institute of Philanthropy (https://www.charitywatch.org/charitywatch-articles/eight-rungs-of-the-giving-ladder/73) phrased it.

The same idea, of course, exists in other cultures. While its origin isn't clear, the meaning of the following adage is: Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime. Charity is certainly useful and necessary for dealing with an immediate and compelling circumstance, but it is not a long-term treatment. That's what philanthropy is. The Hershey Trust, established by Milton Hershey in 1905, for example, administers a twelve billion dollar endowment for the Milton Hershey School, and thereby underprivileged children are able to get a level of education that would have been denied them. The long-term benefits of that education for the many generations of children involved, and for society in general, are incalculable. Philanthropic gifts like that are far beyond our individual abilities, but they provide services not funded by the government.

It begins as charity for those who start out with only a little, but it may ultimately turn into philanthropy. The same people who give a little, give a lot when they have it. Every now and then you're likely to read in the paper about someone with a low-paying job who died and left a huge amount, a lifetime of savings to some important cause – often a university or a hospital. There may have been smaller charitable contributions along the way but they're of no interest to anyone but the recipients. They may have an impact on the individual beneficiaries, but it's nothing compared to what society gets from the larger philanthropic enterprise.

According to Professor Arthur Brooks (Syracuse University) in his book Who Really Cares, contributions of money, time, and expertise are more likely to come from church-goers than those who don't attend. And those with a close family life and givers as role models. That's not much of a surprise. It's interesting, however, that even many of the poor give (what they can, even it it's a small amount) – usually those who have earned what they have, rather than received it through welfare or another program that doesn't require their work. Similarly, those who have earned fortunes rather than inherited them are more likely to help both individuals and institutions, as are political conservatives.

Liberals tend to be less liberal with their own money than with that of others. (It should be noted that Brooks's work is based on many surveys of donations to individuals and institutions.) There is a common view among them that the government should care for the poor, and that the part of their taxes that supports these efforts constitutes their charity, so they are obligated to little else. (There are, of course, numerous exceptions to these rules, but the profiles of both the non-givers and the generous are well supported. And “exceptions” are exceptions.) But if the government is not doing enough, higher taxes on the rich (who already give proportionally more besides what they pay in taxes) should solve the problem.

The aid given by governments, however, is neither charitable nor philanthropic. It is merely the furtherance of a “right” to be supported. And governments are usually less interested in supporting the efforts of larger institutions that may be serving the public good, unless it is in the interest of a group of a lawmaker's constituents, or a generous lobbyist.

There's a place for both charity and philanthropy. A valued place. Voluntary rather than coerced giving ranks far higher in any rating of the levels of unselfishness, and it is our generosity as individuals that defines us – not our expectations of the government or of others. If we expect others to do it, it won't get done. If you want something done properly, do it yourself.

Rich And Poor

The greatest spread between rich and poor was recorded in 2015.

And before that in 2014.

And 2013.

In fact, all humans started out as equal. If, at the time that our species appeared, all were similarly involved in obtaining sustenance and working to survive, and there was no concept of currency or wealth, it is obvious that the economic spread has been increasing from the very beginning. Everyone started poor, and many remain so. The Bible (Deuteronomy 15:11) tells us “For destitute people will not cease to exist within the Land.” Now, however, there is an economic hierarchy – not simply a single level of poverty.

Why did this happen? Why are there rich and poor? We tend to attribute it to inherited wealth and the oppression of the poor by those with property and money. But that situation did not always obtain. Once we all were poor. In times we can only imagine, some became wealthy while others did not.

Perhaps the causes for this were brute strength and theft. Perhaps people were not equal in all respects but there were differences in, among other things, physical power and avarice. History has certainly shown this to be the case. Warriors and greedy people have established religious, political, and economic empires by force, and they have often passed them on to their children, or to others who shared their philosophy. That might be the case – indeed, it is undeniable that this happened – but it isn't the entire story, and leaves several questions unanswered.

For example, does that explain all the differences? If inheritance is the cause of inequality, is it justified? Should there be equality and socialism?

But more important, is it all really true? Are the rich well-off because of inheritance? Is there such a thing as incentive? Should there be a reward for improvement? People are, by nature, competitive. There are winners and losers. Should that normal impulse be reinforced, ignored, or penalized?

It is noteworthy that the truly rich, people like Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, didn't inherit their wealth. Actually “65% of the world’s UHNW individuals are self-made.” (businessinsider.com) The UHNW (Ultra High Net Worth) group, which includes various entertainment and sports figures, the computer pioneers, assorted inventors, numerous entrepreneurs, and those who invest in their projects, are a large part of the folks we love to hate and blame (anyone better off than we are). Yet less than twenty percent are living solely off inherited riches. Put otherwise, the vast majority are rich because of their looks, talent, ideas, hard work, and willingness to take risks. And luck. That's doesn't fit the image of the one percent so often reviled. The ones we envy. (Interestingly, in 2013, the last year from which I have figures, the most rapidly growing UHNW economies were Pakistan, Nigeria, Sri Lanka, Kenya, and the United Arab Republics. There are others we can hate besides our fellow Americans.) It is individual creativity, incentive, and hard work that have caused humanity to reach its current state. People want to advance and should be encouraged to do so.

It is a common, though regrettable, characteristic of humans that whatever problems we have we consider the fault of someone else. We're not responsible. That's not to say that there isn't some truth to this view. We're not all equal, and there are some who are better looking, more muscular, more creative, or intellectually superior to others, and they have used their gifts to succeed. Nor can it be denied that there are, among the rich, some who capitalize on their position to exercise control over those who are less fortunate. But if all members of Homo sapiens started out on the same rung of the economic ladder, if there are differences now, somewhere along the line the sorting must have taken place because of someone's talent, hard work, and willingness to take risks. That's true even in families with inherited wealth.

Of course society has the obligation to provide for the needy. Whether the need is for food, medical care, shelter, or something else, we cannot deny our responsibility for the “destitute people [who] will not cease to exist within the Land.” Ideally though, the necessary assistance will be provided by all of us voluntarily, and philanthropic endeavors by some of the “super-rich,” Gates, Zuckerberg, Buffett, Rockefeller, and Carnegie among them, are noteworthy in this regard. The foundations they established have offered substantial assistance to those in need. (Indeed, they have aided us all.) But there are times, sadly too many, when compulsory assistance, derived from more fortunate taxpayers, is required because voluntary help is insufficient. And when it is necessary there should be no hesitation in providing it.

Charity, however, as exemplified by government support, though it may serve as a necessary bridge, is not the answer. It promotes and rewards dependence. Independence is a better solution. Philanthropy – the provision of funds to establish conditions that will allow the needy to thrive and to enrich themselves using their own talents and hard work – is more likely to furnish a continuing benefit for recipients and their children. It's far better to help those in need to succeed, than to aid them in failure. In his discussion of charity, Maimonides (twelfth century) wrote that “The greatest level [of charity], above which there is no greater, is to … strengthen his hand [that of the needy person] until he need no longer be dependent upon others.” Someone else, probably more recent despite the claims regarding Lao Tzu, phrased it differently: “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” And by his efforts in whatever field he chooses he may even become wealthy.

There is a responsibility as well, therefore, of the needy to find ways to improve themselves. Success is certainly not assured, but there is still the possibility of going from rags to riches. Or at least to self-sufficiency. However it requires effort. Society is duty-bound to provide the conditions for success. Those who desire advancement, though, must invest themselves and their ideas in seeking it.