Guess not all boat people are nice!

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

Tax advantages /minimization and publicity (look at me) in a lot of cases.
Just need to look at the amount of $1.2 million dollar donations recently.
Why $1.2, why not $1.7 or some other amount and why not anonymous ?

While appreciated I'm sure, for the super rich its probably equates to money fallen behind the couch or average Joe donating $10.

Calling the Gates or Warren Buffett "wealthy" is like calling Irma "a bit stormy". Rarer still is their philanthropy; the Gates Foundation has a budget greater than some nations. Not exactly couch money. Also, it's now their full-time occupation, so at least there it's more than a tax dodge or window dressing.

[nieljohn]

This is so shocking news ,Sad

[BandB]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

Tax advantages /minimization and publicity (look at me) in a lot of cases.
Just need to look at the amount of $1.2 million dollar donations recently.
Why $1.2, why not $1.7 or some other amount and why not anonymous ?

While appreciated I'm sure, for the super rich its probably equates to money fallen behind the couch or average Joe donating $10.

That is insulting to imply that people only donate money for tax purposes and for publicity. Now, in your defense, you did say "in a lot of cases". Many give anonymously, but for those who don't, the reason they make it public often is to try to draw attention to the cause. As to the tax purposes, it may lessen the cost of giving but giving 60% of the cost of giving is still there. You're left with more money by not giving.

Yes, for someone with a billion dollars, giving a million is a small percent of their money. Still though it's money they earned, they worked for. And for those giving half their worth to charity, that's a huge gift regardless of how much they are worth. There are some good super rich people just like good poor people. They've often done great things for society. Similarly, there are those who just take and never give anything back.

We aren't among the super rich. Once worked for one of them and he's a wonderful guy. However, for the little bit of money we do have, one of the things we feel most fortunate of is that it does allow us to respond when we see help needed and we always do so anonymously.

As to publicity, we have a close friend who is a realtor. So, her charity involvement is very much good publicity for her. However, that doesn't make her work on behalf of PAWS (Pets are Worth Saving) or Cancer or Habitat for Humanity any less meaningful. She also uses her public role to involve her many contacts and present and former clients in the charities she's involved with. It's like JJ Watt and Hurricane Harvey. What an incredible use of being a well known, popular athlete to help others.

[BandB]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Calling the Gates or Warren Buffett "wealthy" is like calling Irma "a bit stormy". Rarer still is their philanthropy; the Gates Foundation has a budget greater than some nations. Not exactly couch money. Also, it's now their full-time occupation, so at least there it's more than a tax dodge or window dressing.

Still pretty remarkable when you consider in Gates case, they could be doing anything they wanted to, anything in the world, yet have committed so heavily to charities. Buffett and others then have followed and pledged half their worth. Yes, the remaining half is still big but a substantial part of that will go to estate taxes. There are now 139 persons who have pledged $365 million through The Giving Pledge. I see people on the list for whom I have great admiration and a couple I can't stand, but I respect them all for their gifts, assuming they actually do as they've promised.

I've met famous athletes, I've worked for famous people, but it's still my dream to one day meet Bill and Melinda Gates. I have an acquaintance who is friends with them and has said "one day." I admire them far more as philanthropists than I did as business people. One simple example. Ebola. The key to preventing it from becoming a worldwide epidemic was the jump in attacking it by the Gates Foundation while other organizations, countries and the UN were talking about it but couldn't act. With no bureaucracy to deal with they were able to just send the help. I'm very thankful for that and would never diminish it by calling it pocket change. Yes, the Gates Foundation has a larger budget than many nations and the do a lot better job with the money they have too. If Bill and Melinda were running a nation, I'd be ready to move there.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by BandB

... I see people on the list for whom I have great admiration and a couple I can't stand, but I respect them all for their gifts, assuming they actually do as they've promised. ...

So, why have a list? In my day, giving was anonymous. Why the change? Why do we want to be on a list? Just give the darned money...

[BandB]

Originally Posted by NevisDog

So, why have a list? In my day, giving was anonymous. Why the change? Why do we want to be on a list? Just give the darned money...

I don't want to be on any list but the reason Warren Buffett started the list was to encourage other very wealthy people to do as he had. Quite a few billionaires did. I agree with you in that I would never have agreed to put my name on that list. Regardless, it's an impressive list.

No, in no day was all the giving anonymous. Wealthy people always had their own funds and their giving to charities was publicized. Look at Carnegie and the Rockefellers. Look at all the schools and buildings on college campuses and hospital wings named after a donor. Hopefully, that practice is dying after them needing to rename a few due to scandals involving the person named. Schools did a lot of matching funds where a well known alumni would agree to match all they raised from others. The feeling is the publicity helps and it probably does. I just don't ever want to be the one publicized and there are still a lot of anonymous donors today.

So, two schools of thought

One is just give the darn money.

The other is allow your name to be used to try to encourage others to give.

I don't think either choice makes someone a bad person.

[NevisDog]

Originally Posted by BandB

... Wealthy people always had their own funds and their giving to charities was publicized. Look at Carnegie and the Rockefellers....

Interesting - I don't want to labour this point but it seems to me, wealthy American people always had their names up in lights; and now I'm wondering why that may be so...

[john61ct]

Commonwealth upper-class types apparently used to believe it uncouth to openly discuss money, that old money had more status than new, even that unearned wealth better than money you worked for.

Like the butler and lord of Downton Abbey kind of sh!te.

[taxwizz]

Originally Posted by Simi 60

No you don't.

Bum guns yes, fingers no.
Cleanliness is paramount in the Muslim faith.

It's hard to find toilet paper in the desert.

[DSDman]

I find it extremely interesting how these threads drift, and entertaining. My initial post was more of a duel purpose to call attention to a poor lost derelict boat, and then to also point out that not all boaters are nice... which in my case was a novel thought since I always assume everyone is well meaning and just wants to do the right thing. Then I read the original article and it brings me back to reality and reminds me to keep the guard up a bit. I originally thought this would devolve into another salvage discussion or perhaps a study on the best way to get a boat off the beach but surprisingly it has evolved into a discussion on philanthropy and the better side of human nature, sharing! [emoji51]that's just cool.

[john61ct]

With a frisson of islamaphobia to remind us just which multiverse branch we've unfortunately slipped into here

[Simi 60]

Originally Posted by BandB

That is insulting to imply that people only donate money for tax purposes and for publicity. Now, in your defense, you did say "in a lot of cases".

Be insulted all you like but the fact remains several articles have come out after the hurricanes with the same dollar value $1.2 million being "donated" by celebrities.

Seems to me the number is likely a tax cutoff and they get look at me value from the "adoring fans" as well.

[GordMay]

Greetings and welcome aboard the CF, nieljohn.

[GordMay]

The medieval Jewish scholar Maimonides wrote that one of the most elevated ways to give (tzedakah) is an anonymous donation to a recipient whose identity is also unknown.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus teaches that “when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets” but rather “do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret.”

On the other hand:
➥ https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/h...ase-for-reform

[Olddan1943]

GordMay,
For many years I would donate anonymously then my CPA reminded me, Uncle Sam does not trust anyone. So now, I have to request documentation.
Giving cash may seem to be the fastest way of "giving" but sadly, a lot of the cash 'disappears' into administrative costs.

I am old enough to remember when a handshake was a contract and a person's word was good as gold.

Per the current crises.... PR's warehouses are filling up but, according to the news, the infrastructure is 'totaled' so getting it out where it is needed is next to impossible.
I am more than disappointed it took this administration so long to respond. Alas, help can never arrive too soon nor in the amount needed.
The hospital ship will not leave for a week, for good reasons. Have to get stores on board, making sure all the operating rooms are properly stocked and reassigning the necessary and needed medical personnel are onboard.
Logistics and administration always slows down the needed responses, thank to the 'bean counters.'
What I would like to see is an accounting AFTER the crises has been resolved and the immediate prosecution of those involved in the 'disappearance' of the aid sent.