I was reading a thread on the Sonlight Curriculum forums yesterday about the demise of the middle class. I will confess, I was dismayed to read about how little some of the participants on that forum are getting by on each year. But then I did a little research this morning using a tool my wife brought to my attention earlier this week: The Global Rich List.

As the people who put that site together explained in a recent blog post,

[T]he Global Rich List, launched in 2003, continues to surprise people with their unexpected financial ranking in the world – which makes them feel instantly better about their income, and in turn puts them in a much happier place to think about giving some of it to a good cause.

Where do you stand? I think you’ll be surprised!

And for those of us who are thinking about legacy–either legacy planning or, simply, passing on a legacy–I think it can be helpful to be surprised, to have our thinking expanded.

So, I’m curious: Does the websites result surprise you? Change your perception either of yourself or of the world? How do you think it may change your behavior?

When philanthropic needs surround us, how can we avoid being overwhelmed?

Seth Godin raises this question in a post where he develops a theme from the secular preference utilitarian ethicist Peter Singer:

Singer is famous for posing a stunningly difficult question, paraphrased as, “If you are walking by a pond and you see a child drowning, do you save her? What if it means ruining a very fancy pair of Italian shoes?” Okay, if we assume the answer is yes, then Read the rest of this entry »

Shankar Vedantam tells a disturbing story about a dog at sea to raise a serious question about how we humans prioritize our charitable endeavors.

A fire broke out in the engine room of the Insiko 1907, an unregistered tanker, as it passed about 800 miles south of the Hawaiian Islands. The fire swept through the ship so quickly that the crew wasn’t even able to radio for help.

When the fire subsided, 11 men and the captain’s dog found themselves safe, with good supplies of food and water, in the ship’s forward quarters. But they had no engines, no radio, and no means for contacting the outside world.

So the ship drifted aimlessly for days, eventually coming within 220 miles of Hawaii–at which point a cruise ship picked up the crew. Hokget, the dog, however, was left behind.

One of the cruise ship passengers who heard Hokget barking called the Hawaiian Humane Society to see if they would do something to rescue him. The Society alerted fishing boats, but the operation seemed hopeless.

As Vedantam explains,

The problem . . . was that no one knew where the Insiko was. The U.S. Coast Guard estimated it could be anywhere in an area measuring 360,000 square miles.

I don’t need to tell the whole story. A month and a half after the fire broke out, and over $300,000 of private and public taxpayer money later, Hokget was finally rescued.

In the meantime, letters and contributions had poured into the Humane Society from 39 states and four foreign countries. One was a check for $5,000. The notes expressed deep anguish and concern:

“This check is in memory of the little dog lost at sea.”

“Thank you for pulling my heartstrings and for reminding me of all the hope there is left in this world.”

And so forth.

This episode raises a series of disturbing questions, however, writes Vedantam. Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve posted the story of a major bequest that came to the brink of becoming worthless–or worse than worthless–to the recipients.

I imagine it’s a cautionary tale that many of us should pay attention to.

Check it out on the Strategic Inheritance forums . . . and join the conversation!

I described the technical differences between donor-advised funds (DAFs) and private foundations back in June of 2007. Frankly, at the time, I saw no compelling reason seriously to consider creating a DAF.

Following the FoundationWise^SM conference, however, I’m seeing more reasons than I did back then to consider this alternative. Read the rest of this entry »

I mentioned I was able to participate in a meeting with about a dozen fairly high-end charitable givers. Our host at the meeting told us about a giving strategy that he and his family have begun pursuing in the last few years, a strategy that can “pay back” in tax deductions as much as or even more than whatever you gave.

I thought it was well worth mentioning this strategy just in case you find yourself in a position to make donations of, say, a hundred thousand dollars or more and you’re not yet at the point where you are giving 50% of your AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) to charity.

This strategy could multiply your ability to give. Read the rest of this entry »

I’ve talked about this often enough in the past. (See the “Related posts” list at the end of this one!) But it bears repeating . . . especially if and when it can be said briefly. And I think this is the briefest way I have ever said these things.

What follows is from an interview I did five and a half years ago with the newsletter editor of one of the non-profits we support. I quote his questions and my answers: Read the rest of this entry »

In my last post, I talked about giving your children the vast majority of their inheritance “early”–while they’re still in their 20s and early 30s, say–rather than later.

A few weeks ago, I was talking with a friend who has many years’ experience counseling and coaching wealthy individuals . . . as a wealthy person himself and a friend, not as a professional counselor. He made an interesting observation about a reason why you want to predefine for your heirs–and make sure they know–how much you intend to leave them: You want to remove every potential reason they may have (every potential conflict-of-interest) that may lead them to think that, by reducing cost of the care you receive toward the end of your life, they will benefit.

“I have seen it,” he said, “where the children say, ‘Y’know, if we put Mom in the _____ Village, we will be spending [i.e., they will be digging into Mom's nest-egg!] to the tune of an extra $50,000 a year compared to _____ Nursing Home. Why should we waste our money?’ “

Of course, they are not “wasting” money if the quality of service is significantly different (which it was in this particular case). And they weren’t about to “waste” or “spend” their money. It was Mom’s money they were talking about. But they were already anticipating it as their own. And so they withheld from their mother what should have been rightfully hers . . . if only she and her husband had done advanced planning that predefined for the children exactly what they could expect and demonstrated that there was no reason for the kids to modify their care plans in hopes of gaining advantages for themselves.