Answered "willing to" for (slightly lower than) values of "currently am." Answering for values of "would like to" would have produced a slightly more flattering number. But mostly I am just an evil selfish, etc. I have a tentative plan to become less selfish in the near future, but I don't think that counts for now.
The truth is that I have to answer 'as much as I can afford.' Because I really believe in charitable giving, but some months are just not, well, easy because I'm also a frivolous girly who will overspend on books and clothes.
The important point to note with the £10M question is the diminishing marginal utility of money. The first million is life-changing (buys a house and a basic pension); the next four million is also life changing but to a lesser extent (gives you a private income and a decent pension, pays off housing and pension for all your first-degree relatives), and the final five million is pretty much pointless -- unless you're into really conspicuous consumption (drop a couple of mil on a house or a yacht, go gambling in Monaco).
It's a lot easier to sign away 25% or 50% of a £10M windfall than it is to sign away that proportion of a £1M windfall, let alone your regular pay packet (to which income you have adjusted your lifestyle).
I don't like the bias in the first question - since my income is v. low I can't afford to give away much, but I don't think that makes me as selfish as someone who earns £60,000 and only gives away a small percentage.
Doesn't the first one depend on income (and, indeed, balance sheet)? I'm struggling with it a bit because I have no income. Would have a different answer in different circumstances.
I kind of lumped all sorts of stuff into that "helping starving people" category, though; for example, I'd give a few million to the organisation-whose-name-I-can't-remember who really really need £8million over the next few years to try and stop all the bees dying, because no bees = all of us starve.
My "zero" is a rounding error thing; I already give about $100/year to the local Food Bank. It's not that I won't give, it's that I really can't give much without risking ending up on the taking end and mucking it up for everybody.
My 5% on the prize winnings is because I wouldn't restrict my charitable contributions to starvation; decent education ranks pretty high on my list, too, as does basic preventative health care measures (including clean water and innoculations). Frankly, I think UNICEF (or something similar) would get the bulk of my charitable attentions.
-- Steve'd also want to leave some winnings aside for the memorial bronze colossus in his image; c'mon, you know you would too.
What if a population is incapable of sustaining itself. Should it should be allowed to decrease naturally and thus we shouldn't give to charity to try to prop up unsustainable population levels? I.e. if you can't afford / can't source enough food, to feed your kids then you shouldn't have had them in the first place and shouldn't expect anyone else to help you out.
If I donate part of my income, am I only making things worse by sustaining / expanding (if they then have kids too) an ever-increasing overpopulation problem?
Is not donating at that point selfish or practical on a global scale?
I'm not saying that's my personal viewpoint but this article on the impact of overpopulation on the environment got me pondering applying the same issues to charity. There are (or most likely soon will be) too many people. Is not giving for the sake of the planet rather than the individual the ultimate selfless act?
I get £60/week student loan and am going to be roughly £25k in debt at the end of my degree, so I'm answering "0%, but more when I, y'know, have a job and stuff".
And also, what about people who aren't starving but are suffering? People who have terminal illnesses? There's no option for me to say "Well, I'd prefer to patronise Children in Need/Stonewall/Everyman/the BHF". Not every charitable action has to end in helping the starving people, and if it did you'd be massively discriminating against people who are also very vulnerable!
As such, I'm going to refrain from filling it out.
I would currently actually commit less than 5% in the first instance - I figured out that my planned outgoing (have been meaning to set up a monthly standing order for a bit) works out to about 2% of my monthly income, but given how low that monthly income is it's about as much as I can afford without it affecting me in any way, and see below re: evil selfish person.
The 5% to the second is because I have it worked out roughly how much I need left over to live off interest after the initial big spends, and I have other giveaway priorities such as family and friends and so on which get bigger as the amount of money gets bigger, and a half a million is about what's left out of ten, I'd guess.
My caveat would be that my answers apply to generic "people starving to death in Africa"; if it were people I loved or, to a lesser extent, people I knew, then the percentage suddenly shoots straight up to "everything that's left after the roof over my head and my own food, and as much as is needed of my credit card funds".
As someone else above said, it depends on who's starving and, more importantly, why they're starving; if it's because of overpopulation, and the result of them not starving will be to have more children who will then starve because there are too many people for the (slightly increased) resources, then giving aid to them will actually have increased the amount of human suffering in the world, which is entirely pointless.
Honestly, if I got $10M, i probably simply wouldn't think of this. The first thought on my mind would not be "how can I give this money away to help others?", but "what should I spend/save $10M on?".
My answers in the poll assume I'm being reminded that this is not a bad idea. Otherwise, I'm a $0 selfish bastard.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
It's a lot easier to sign away 25% or 50% of a £10M windfall than it is to sign away that proportion of a £1M windfall, let alone your regular pay packet (to which income you have adjusted your lifestyle).
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
My 5% on the prize winnings is because I wouldn't restrict my charitable contributions to starvation; decent education ranks pretty high on my list, too, as does basic preventative health care measures (including clean water and innoculations). Frankly, I think UNICEF (or something similar) would get the bulk of my charitable attentions.
-- Steve'd also want to leave some winnings aside for the memorial bronze colossus in his image; c'mon, you know you would too.
no subject
What if a population is incapable of sustaining itself. Should it should be allowed to decrease naturally and thus we shouldn't give to charity to try to prop up unsustainable population levels? I.e. if you can't afford / can't source enough food, to feed your kids then you shouldn't have had them in the first place and shouldn't expect anyone else to help you out.
If I donate part of my income, am I only making things worse by sustaining / expanding (if they then have kids too) an ever-increasing overpopulation problem?
Is not donating at that point selfish or practical on a global scale?
I'm not saying that's my personal viewpoint but this article on the impact of overpopulation on the environment got me pondering applying the same issues to charity. There are (or most likely soon will be) too many people. Is not giving for the sake of the planet rather than the individual the ultimate selfless act?
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
And also, what about people who aren't starving but are suffering? People who have terminal illnesses? There's no option for me to say "Well, I'd prefer to patronise Children in Need/Stonewall/Everyman/the BHF". Not every charitable action has to end in helping the starving people, and if it did you'd be massively discriminating against people who are also very vulnerable!
As such, I'm going to refrain from filling it out.
no subject
The 5% to the second is because I have it worked out roughly how much I need left over to live off interest after the initial big spends, and I have other giveaway priorities such as family and friends and so on which get bigger as the amount of money gets bigger, and a half a million is about what's left out of ten, I'd guess.
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
My answers in the poll assume I'm being reminded that this is not a bad idea. Otherwise, I'm a $0 selfish bastard.