How fast should philanthropists give their money away? The sooner the better, according to some advocates and donors.
Earlier this month, Jeff Atwood, the co-founder of the tech company Stack Exchange, announced that he would give away more than half of his wealth in the next five years. He was unsatisfied with the Giving Pledge—the promise created by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet to “help shift the social norms of philanthropy among the world’s wealthiest,” whose participants agree to donate more than half of their money.
Atwood wants to do things faster. “I wish more rich people would really stand up and do this,” he told The Chronicle of Philanthropy. “Rather than go hide in your underground bunker or plan your trip to Mars, it’s time to take action to lift other people up and work with the community. In times of great need and times of great fear, that’s the time to take action.”
Atwood isn’t the only philanthropist calling for more rapid giving. Young givers Garrett Neiman and Otis Pitney, for example, are encouraging philanthropists to “Take a Sabbatical From Getting Richer.” The co-founders of the Perennial Sunflower Project—which “supports the emerging movement of white men working to advance equity and justice”—Pitney and Neiman suggest that philanthropists calculate their net worth on January 1 and give enough away to ensure that the number doesn’t increase during the course of the year.
There have always been good causes to which to donate one’s fortune, and those causes often feel urgent. But philanthropists who give away all their money now just because someone is haranguing them won’t have that money to bestow later. While they shouldn’t always wait for a rainier day, need will always be there—a reality that advocates of “fast philanthropy” ignore.
And it’s not as though most rich people are, as Atwood suggests, hoarding money in underground bunkers or saving up for trips to Mars. A 2023 Bank of America study found that affluent households—those either making over $200,000 per year or with a net worth of over $1 million—gave an average of nearly $35,000 to charity in 2022, up from roughly $30,000 in 2017. The U.S. is home to about 750 billionaires, and they also give away a lot of money—over $250 billion from the 400 richest alone.
Neiman and Pitney think it’s not enough. As they put it, “those of us who have ever had excess wealth . . . like to imagine that the extra coins in our pockets aren’t connected to other people’s suffering. Yet the reality is that money always has power to change the lives of those who don’t have enough.” The problem, it seems, is not just that billionaires are giving away money too slowly; it’s that they are getting rich in the meantime.
But Pitney and Neiman, like Atwood, are mistaken about economics. In a free-market society, some people having money in their pocket does not mean that others suffer as a result. People can use their money to start businesses and create jobs; invest their money and thus contribute to innovations that make others better off; and purchase goods, benefiting manufacturers and sellers alike.
These advocates’ sense of urgency is counterproductive, too. Large divestments slow the growth of philanthropists’ net worth—resulting, over time, in less money allocated to the less fortunate.
Warren Buffett, co-founder of The Giving Pledge, has not followed Atwood, Pitney, and Nieman’s lead. His money—close to $150 billion—will be distributed in his estate. Buffet knows how to invest, but he is not sure about charitable strategies.
In fact, plenty of would-be donors have not yet had the time or energy to plan their donations. Many eventually choose donor-advised funds. Others simply invest their money until they can give philanthropy more attention.
Young philanthropists like Atwood, Pitney, and Neiman don’t have patience for that approach. But their short-sighted strategy fails to consider the future. Their favored causes need resources today, sure, but they’ll also need funds in the years ahead.
These advocates don’t trust the capitalist system to produce new wealth and increase their philanthropic potential over time; they lack faith in the system that produced their abundance. Instead, they insist on giving their wealth away now—at future generations’ expense.
Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images
