Millionaire philanthropy is a topic that has stuck with me the most because I saw how there were clear arguments for both sides of how millionaires donate or do not donate money. In specific, when looking at the Carnegies philanthropy, I do not think a millionaire should necessarily be a trustee for the poor; rather a philanthropist should look to see what aspect of the world needs the most help at the time. Philanthropy is about promoting the overall welfare of the people, not acting in place of the people. Also, when looking into how and why millionaires donate, I think a fantastic approach to philanthropy is Bill and Melinda Gates's approach. I believe that “giving back” the large sums of their success is one of the best ways to help the well-being of others who are in need of help.
When discussing how much donations really make a difference, I think an example that everyone is familiar with is the salvation army. Imagine a cold December day when people are rushing out of stores while stopping for a second to hear a bell continually ringing. Even for people rushing to get back to their cars, it is hard to miss a man or woman dressed as Santa Claus waving a loud bell around a red kettle. These people stand outside for long hours to collect small sums for the salvation army around Christmas time. Most people can probably agree that they do not donate huge dollar sums into the little red kettles, but they chose to give away some spare change or small dollar bills. While the general public is not made of millionaires and billionaires, we still offer some help for those who need it. This is something I think people tend to forget. The general public decides what to do with their hard earned money, as well as the millionaires and billionaires.
An article from the salvation army that into many impactful ways that the bell ringing helps a community points out how a bell ringers 2 hours of time generates $80-$100+. This is simply from someone who toughs out the cold to have honest people donate the small sums. The article also points out that a bell ringers 2 hours of ringing time means, “about 80+ meals or a safe warm home to a family for a month, or providing 3 underprivileged children the opportunity to attend summer camp!” (The Salvation Army) which are extraordinary benefits to give to families around Christmas time. I believe that people ought to do with their money and time as they please. If someone desires to raise money by bell ringing for the Salvation Army, I do not see why this should be questioned. Same as someone donating a handful of spare change or loose dollars to a small bucket, I also believe people should take part in that as well.
While there are large differences in the sums being donated from the general public in this example, and the sums donated by millionaires, I still hold true to the idea that a person should be allowed to do as they wish with their money. I also believe that people like Bill and Melinda Gates should continue to instill the notion of “giving back to the community” because it helps create small impacts like the ones discussed in the salvation army example , while also possibly creating a larger picture impact like providing food and warm homes for families during colder months.
Elly Scherer
Elly Scherer
Reference:
10 Reasons to Bell Ring During the Salvation Army Red Kettle Season. (2019, October 28). Retrieved March 2, 2020, from https://centralusa.salvationarmy.org/TraverseCity/news/10-reasons-to-bell-ring-during-the-salvation-army-red-kettle-season/
Let me start by saying that I completely agree with your interpretation of Carnegie's philanthropy: the wealthy should not be forced into this role where they act as a failsafe for those less fortunate. Of course they should consider it, considering millionaires tend to need not want not, however, by no means should they be expected to give away giant lump sums simply because they have it. I think people are quick to demonize millionaires and billionaires that do not act philanthropically like Bill and Melinda Gates or Jeff Bezos do, but I don't think anyone stops and asks themselves whether they would be giving away massive percentages of their liquidity were they in the same position.
ReplyDeleteI also really liked how you honed in on how everyday citizens can make a big difference when they act collectively. The layman's spare change or few dollars won't break their bank, but it won't make a massive impact directly either. However, collectively it results in sums equivalent to those donated singularly by millionaires, and that is something that everyone should consider participating in.
Hi Elly,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your discussion about the Salvation Army and agree that regular people are able to do great things when they come together. The Salvation Army raises millions of dollars every year and does very important work in communities across the country. However, I do disagree with an underlying theme relating to wealthy donors. The problem with philanthropy by extremely wealthy individuals is not that they’re giving to specific causes when we might have an opinion that they should give elsewhere, but it is the fact that they are able to amass unfathomable amounts of wealth in the first place.
I agree with your point that people should be able to do what they want with their money. The issue is less about where the money is going, but why there even are individuals who are able to give away millions/ billions of dollars at all. Wealth inequality is at the core of people’s trepidation with billionaire philanthropy. I don't think anyone sees giving to education or some other cause as negative, but when people are easily able to give away the equivalent of a small country’s GDP without it having a serious impact on their financial well-being, while a majority of society struggles to provide healthcare or quality education for their family, there is a problem with that. Billionaire philanthropy makes people uncomfortable because it embodies the growing divide between the extremely rich and everyone else.
Consumer spending is the foundation of the U.S. economy and when regular people are struggling to provide basic necessities for their families they are not able to stimulate economic growth. A slowing economy ultimately results in panic and recession. Austerity measures by the government create a funding vacuum for social services that people rely on, putting more of a strain on already limited resources. If the growth of wealth inequality persists the country is bound to head straight into a depression. Extreme economic inequality is bad for everyone at the end of the day and billionaire philanthropy is illustrative of the gap between those who are able to donate millions and those who are only able to donate cents.
Hi Elly,
ReplyDeleteThank you for sharing this blog post with us. I think it was interesting how you compared wealthy individuals to everyday people that give money to the salvation army in the winter. I see that you were trying to put it into perspective that we (not millionaires) are able to decide where we want to donate our money to, and so should wealthy individuals. While I appreciate that point of view, and somewhat agree, I want to build off of what Sophia commented on. The real problem isn't whether or not the millionaires or billionaires should donate to those in need and who they donate to, the problem is that they are able to accumulate so much wealth without any limitation.
It is somewhat easy to imagine how you would live your life if you never had to worry about finances. Maybe you would buy a private island with a mansion and a limitless amount of fun activities. Or maybe you would travel the world and get to see all the wonders of the world. That dream is different for everyone. But it is hard to imagine after spending all that money on everything you could ever want, and it being only 10% of the money you have.
What I'm trying to get at is that it is unfair that some individuals get to lead a life like that, and have it only be a sliver of the amount of money they have, while other people can't afford to eat and go to the doctors. So I don't think it should be a question that the money that wealthy people have left after spending what they need to live the life they want should go towards those that need it.
Building off of this, I agree with you that they should get to dictate where their money goes when they donate, but I don't agree with the large tax deduction they receive when donating. They get a 39% tax deduction, which gives them more money to decide who to give it to. This money should be in the government, who was elected to make decisions for the people. More shouldn't be given to an individual or a family to decide what they think is the most pressing issue. It gives too much power to individuals to make decisions that are very impactful to the lives of millions.