Shouldn't we also worry about how poor people are now relative to how
they'll be in the future? Today's poor are much better off than the poor
from a century ago; presumably the poor a century from now will be less
deserving than those of the present day?
On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Richard L. white wrote:
> On 6/5/03 11:22 PM, "Wei Dai" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Suppose I have some money that I don't want to spend, and I'm sure I'll
> > never want to spend it. Should I give it to charity now, or put it in an
> > index fund and bequeath it to charity in my will?
> > Here's my argument in favor of charitable procrastination. The typical
> > recipient of charity does not have access to the kind of investment
> > opportunites (e.g., low cost U.S. mutual funds) that I have, and his other
> > investment opportunities usually have a lower (perhaps even negative) rate
> > of return. Charitable organizations are legally forced to spend a certain
> > percentage of their assets per year, so they can't invest the money
> > indefinitely either. By holding on to my money, I'm actually increasing
> > the present value of the gift from the perspective of the recipient.
> > Can anyone find a flaw in this argument?
> Ignoring the utility of the money to the target charity today, e.g.,
> food or medicine to live, the money value of the PV should also be reduced
> by the tax benefit you have forgone by not making the donation today.