(Get a good seat in the pew...I think this might be a sermon.)

Charity is off its rocker and has been toppled by social climbers who cling to the well-paved path of buying social exposure through charitable donations and subsequent media exposure.

Charity, by definition, history and tone is anonymous. St. Paul would roll over in his grave if he knew donors calculated charitable donations with the notion of quid pro quo in mind. Still, good 'ol Paul would puke at the sickening new height at which aspiring socialites buy cache through charitable giving.  The individuals who donate merely for tax deductions deserve a thump on the head, but the empty-headed socialite with no understanding or connection to the charity who sees an opportunity to be photographed in a new gown with the hope the "news" wire will broadcast the image to thousands of worshipers truly deserves a spanking.

Without the glitzy party that promises a spot in the social chronicles or an opportunity to win a weekend with a golf legend, the nonprofit who chooses not to engage in quid pro quo misses the contribution.  When donor's desire to be feted, photographed and given luxury gifts and sneak peeks at the exclusive is not met, the gift is not given.  The nonprofit that expects donors to give out of charity is the nonprofit that is unable to pay the utility bill.

Quid pro quo "charity" should be abhorred because it gives donors a false sense that they are doing something good. Buying a $150 ticket to a charity event gives the donor a fabulous evening of wine, food, entertainment and business opportunity, but how is it charitable- really?  After the hard costs of facility rental, food, staff, overhead and endless promotional materials noting sponsor names is deducted, what is left to give the community?

The charity circuit has become ubiquitous with parties and most party attendees have zero idea what the charity does for the community, and of course volunteering for the charity, aside from picking the party menu, is out of the question.  One social maven refused a charity's request for donation on the basis she had exceeded her "giving" budget for the year because she had hosted a big party to celebrate her father's 75th birthday.  Hosting a birthday party now qualifies as "giving" to this self-promoting generation. Having managed a charity, volunteered for charitable organizations and professionally worked to raise money for charities, it is with trepidation that I sully the water and make it even more difficult to raise the precious resources necessary to operate nonprofits. However, it must be a part of the public debate that contributions given in exchange for advertising, marketing and politics are not charity and should not be given correlated tax treatment.

For fact, the Joint Committee on Taxation states that the U.S. government loses $40 billion in tax revenue each year because of charitable donations. Most horrifying is that these tax deductions are not the same for every American.  Less than half of the big buckin' taxpayers that itemize are afforded tax deductions for charitable donations.  To boil this down to the simple, it is in the billionaire's financial best interest to make charitable donations, but the person making $60,000 does not get a tax benefit unless a relatively large contribution level is reached.

Further still, the affluent contributor that gets the tax deduction for charitable giving very often makes the contribution to a self-serving organization like their children's school or a sports organization.  Do you think a run-of-mill citizen can get season's tickets to the University of Texas football games without a donation to the Longhorn Foundation?  Not on your life. The money raised goes to pay for the education of the athletes, many of whom do not even graduate –but, gee they can run fast.

For some, debasing the meaning of charity by dressing it up in crowns and gowns is not significant, but for society as a whole it is important. While one woman makes a well-photographed appearance in a Gucci original, one woman works three jobs and tithes 10% to church. Gucci Woman enjoys a tax deduction that she doesn't even feel or need, and Worker Woman wrings her hands over not being able to afford the fee for her child to play extra-curricular sports.  While the art museum hosts and roasts Millionaire Guy in a room full of business deals, Single Mother is ashamed that she had to make the once-in-while stop by the FoodBank only to find it lacking in supplies. Guess the FoodBank should cultivate  donors who have bigger social aspirations.

What can be done to reverse this ugly self-absorbed trend?  Retrain the children.  The generation who has "no gifts, please" birthday parties might grow up understanding that the party need not focus on them.  Certainly by the time this next generation matures, the days of CEO annual salaries exceeding $44 million and the onslaught of retired-at-62 babyboomers will have sucked the economy dry and the lesson of selfless giving will have returned, though its birth will leave an indelible scar on society – which could have been avoided.

Comments

[Avery]

I think I've just been insulted! ;o)

This is so true. No one gives out of the goodness of their heart anymore. It's up to us as parents to teach our kids the value of selfless giving. What a great message!

[Liz]

Well put, very well put.

I work for a non profit and our indiviual donors, giving quite a bit of their dough, do it without the big party and without the recoginition. Our big party is this Saturday and it is attended not by folks buying tables for the "event" of it, but by folks who want to support us. We have "major donor" events and even those are not what you would think. The last one was a hike in the woods followed by a lunch that was fit for- well, certainly not for a king. And these people enjoy it and don't seem to be annoyed that it's not going to get their picture in the town's monthly magazine like all the other nonprofits "major donor" events.

I think there is hope. But maybe it will never be more than just that - hope.

[bitsy parker]

No, Avery! I meant everybody else BUT you.

[Diosa]

I couldn't agree with you more Bitsy. I think getting the republicans out of office will help.

[Holmes]

Wow, excellent post. As the saying goes, "to whom much is given, much is expected." It seems that in so many cases, this has been warped to something like "to whom much is given, much is needed to fulfill your narcissistic demands."

[Kimberly]

But my money's still good, right? So what if I have a nice time, dress up and drink a glass or six of wine? Maybe I wouldn't have purchased the ticket if most of the proceeds weren't going toward preserving the parks in my local area...or to benefit my PTO.

Being social while helping society can't be all bad...even if we wear Gucci.

Note: I was raised to believe that being charitable should be anonymous. "Do not let the right hand know what the left hand is doing." And I try to live by that.

[Polly]

I'm actually feeling pretty proud of the charitable practices of my community right now.

[Diosa]

My own two cents. No, charitable parties are not all bad. Who among us hasn't been to one? However, if your income is in the six digits and your big donation for the year is throwing a birthday party for family and your getting a tax deduction for it, shame on you.

[bitsy parker]

Polly, have been so worried about you with all the fires. Aren't you in that part of the world?

[sarah]

hey bitsy, will you email me...i have a question for you...thanks.

[cal gal]

Right on!

As I see it, the problem with the big bash tax write-off thing is that people of a certain income attend these events 200 nights out of the year. Then they have a huge tax write off--money that arguably should go to the greater good of all society, doled out by our wise, compassionate and fair leaders--who, of course, we all know we have in spades. Most of the charities are very worthy, but then again, we have the top one percent income bracket of our country deciding how public funds should be allocated, when, perhaps, more of that money should have gone to children's health issues, for instance.

[Bitsy Parker]

Wow, Value wIT has gone and gotten smart. Cal Gal makes some really good points! She must be a smarty.