Ok, something a bit controversial to encourage some discussion ;)
Here’s a theory I’ve been thinking about recently:
Most people give on a weekly or monthly basis, because it’s a good habit to get into (and a good thing to do of course), which is fair enough.
However, if you’re in your 20s, you probably have, or are planning on, borrowing a truck load of money to buy a house or unit.
For every dollar you borrow now, you have to spend more on compounded interest over the length of the loan, and that *really* adds up.
Therefore, if you think in terms of your lifetime savings, the more you borrow now, the less money you’ll have overall, therefore the less you can give away over your lifetime.
If you don’t give to charity now, and instead put it towards the property purchase, you’ll have more money, sooner, once the property is paid off, thus enabling you to give more to charity over your lifetime, which is ultimately more generous than if you gave regularly early on.
If you don’t develop the habit of giving now you’re unlikely to develop it later.
Our lifestyles tend to reflect our income and once we get used to it it’s hard to go back.
Also, part of giving is acknowledging that there are others who have greater (genuine) needs and we get the blessing of being able to help.
Edit: Of course it’s better not to give than to give with an unwilling heart.
[ Edited: 20 January 2009 06:56 AM by Angus Johnson]
In your first case is
Interest rate Vs real Inflation rate
Note: If your monetary supply is rising too fast (like Us keep printing money). It’s better for you to borrow more money right now for investment purpose.
High inflation rate and low borrowing cost (interest rate) will wide off your debt and hege your position
In second case
Required return rate Vs real inflation rate
Note: Real inflation rate is tends to be higher the interest rate they give it you in your bank. Therefore, require return rate got to be more than real inflation rate.
The richest man on earth - Warren Buffet is a well known a stingy man / the greatest investor. He will give at least 90% of his wealth back to the society (charity funds) when he pass away. He truly understand the time value of money, and money can generate more money. He made an assumption is that the world will not be ended in XXX yrs. The only trouble is we never know when will this world comes to the end.
I read/was taught that in your budgeting no more than 30% of your take home income should be going towards your housing situation (be it rent, or paying a mortgage). And at the most maybe you could push it up to 33% (which is a third of your income).
Most people follow some kind of budget however rudimentary or elaborate. So if you are a person who is generous in wanting to give ... there is usually room to give something.
But yes sometimes ... charity will slip off the list of priorities when times get tough.
What is better. Giving regular smaller amounts to charity over a long period of time?
or
Giving one large lump sum amount to charity after you have finished paying off a bank loan?
Is one or the other better? Does it matter?
What is better ...... giving to charity ...... or volunteering time with a charity at home?
What is better ... giving to charity .... or fundraising .... so one can go overseas and experience charity work at the coalface?
What is better ... fundraising for charity ....and instead of going overseas ... donate your fundraising sums to the charity?
What is better ... having experienced charity at the coalface overseas and then coming home and doing nothing more about it ....
or
having experienced overseas the coalface of charity work ..... changing your career direction to work for the charity?
Life brings us so many choices doesn’t it. Which is the better? That is very personal and specific to the individual.
peace.
Heather.
:)
[ Edited: 19 January 2009 09:21 PM by Heather Smith]
If you don’t give to charity now, and instead put it towards the property purchase, you’ll have more money, sooner, once the property is paid off, thus enabling you to give more to charity over your lifetime, which is ultimately more generous than if you gave regularly early on.
Thoughts? ;)
While that covers live donations, on the other hand charities might be better placed to garner bequests from single twenty-somethings. On the off chance that I die from a train crash shortly after inheriting something but before marrying anyone, should I bequest a portion of my remaining assets to charity I’d be less likely than a married man to be left with squabbling relatives after I’m gone.
Ok, something a bit controversial to encourage some discussion ;)
Here’s a theory I’ve been thinking about recently:
Most people give on a weekly or monthly basis, because it’s a good habit to get into (and a good thing to do of course), which is fair enough.
However, if you’re in your 20s, you probably have, or are planning on, borrowing a truck load of money to buy a house or unit.
For every dollar you borrow now, you have to spend more on compounded interest over the length of the loan, and that *really* adds up.
Therefore, if you think in terms of your lifetime savings, the more you borrow now, the less money you’ll have overall, therefore the less you can give away over your lifetime.
If you don’t give to charity now, and instead put it towards the property purchase, you’ll have more money, sooner, once the property is paid off, thus enabling you to give more to charity over your lifetime, which is ultimately more generous than if you gave regularly early on.
Thoughts? ;)
Well firstly God calls us to give cheerfully. And so if we are concerned over finances we should give as little or as much as we really desire.
But overall, I feel your approach is completely wrong. All that we have, at all times, is given to us by God. In terms of God’s sovereignty and our future earnings it is just as likely that we will pay off our home loans quickly as it is that we will be given a permanent disability leaving our young families bankrupt.
Lastly, the actual dollar amount we give over a lifetime is completely irrelevant. If our focus is on maximising our finances, even our finances that we give away, we are serving money. There is no such thing as “ultimately more generous.” What God cares about is how we love, support and provide for those in need around us, at the present.
Luke said
If you don’t give to charity now, and instead put it towards the property purchase, you’ll have more money, sooner, once the property is paid off, thus enabling you to give more to charity over your lifetime, which is ultimately more generous than if you gave regularly early on.
———————————————————————————————
If you are a good investor who beleive he / she can out perform the market. The true is you can give much more to charity
——————————————————————————————-
Luke said
For every dollar you borrow now, you have to spend more on compounded interest over the length of the loan, and that *really* adds up ——————————————————————————————
That is not the case, rich people borrow lots of money to invest. Simily they beleive they can beat the market. And the Requrid return rate is defintely higher than the interest rate they paid.
Don’t forget the Investment interest you paid is Tax free!!! You can get it back from tax return
Let’s look at how the Anglican Media Syd staff get paid.
I heard they get paid by an AMP investment fund. Surely, the investment manager is doing his job to outperform the market. And I assume the profit they made is to offset the expense they made.
Let’s also look at how some of the churches survie today. If the churches didn’t buy the land and properties in an early stage. They cannot simply survive today. The rental income is defintly keeping them to survive. Don’t forget that.
Shouldn’t we have a longer bigger plan for the generation to come. I don’t think there is a black and white answer in here.
My challenge to all of you is can you be an investment manager who can outperform the market return, at the same time you are not worshipping money.
How much risk you can take!! If you are overleveraged like investment banks, it’s just a matter of time you will go bust like investment banks as what you see right now.
I am from a Fin background, I know I sounds like an evil.
First, I have no problem for what Danni just said. The main arguement is back to the tiem vale of money, how much time we have before Jesus return and the uncertainity we face. And in reality, money can offset some of the hurdles we face. Money can help a chruch to growth.
Money is not a evil but the love of money is. So watch out!!
Oh, I thought this was gonna be something along the lines of how crap their fashion is so don’t give away those clothes until they become nostalgia favourites….
How dumb am I?
If you decide to defer giving now because of some reason or other, later there will be another reason not to give.
I see young people who don’t get involved in church right now becasue they are planning their wedding.
Then they don’t go to church after getting married, because they are spending their time looking for a house.
Then they don’t go to church because they are fixing up their house.
Then the kids come along and they don’t go to church because they are worn out from looking after the kids.
There’s always a great reason to not give, to not share in encouraging others at church, etc, etc.
If you don’t give to charity now, and instead put it towards the property purchase, you’ll have more money, sooner, once the property is paid off, thus enabling you to give more to charity over your lifetime, which is ultimately more generous than if you gave regularly early on.
Since when was giving ever stated in the Bible as being required to be the maximum amount you can give over your lifetime?
It’s not about quantity but about the heart.
2CO 9:7 Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.
It’s not all about how much we give to God financially it’s about giving every aspect of our lives to the Lord in service to Him which includes our money, Willingly.
I agree with a few of the other posters in that generosity does not come naturally. We are essentially self-centered and selfish because of our sinful nature. I think we should give even if we don’t feel like it but because we know God wants us to be generous and not forget those less fortunate, also not to forget that our ministers/teachers/missionaries deserve to be paid (supported financially). You may not be a cheerful giver to begin with but if you make up your mind to give and put that into practice eventually your emotions catch up with your decision to give.
There is nothing wrong with buying a house to live in because you have to pay rent regardless. Like anything we buy you can go overboard and spend far more than you need to or be practical and buy only what you need. You don’t have to furnish it in top notch furniture straight away etc.. I think I’ve made my point. We need to be good stewards of our money. There are many ways we can cut our costs to leave ourselves with a bit more funds from which we can give.
There are some who are on the poverty line and what they have only covers their living costs. Recently I’ve been trying to help someone who is barely making enough to pay all their essential bills and have money for their doctors appointments and medications. Sad to say the days are coming when this will become more common.
I think its good to develop a generous spirit and sit down and tithe your income. After all 90% is a lot to keep. ..whether you tithe to the church or split it so some goes to charity as well is up to you.
This does a number of things.
1.) Helps us to truly trust in God to provide for all our needs.
2.) Helps us to plan our income and spend wisely.
3.) Helps us to develop a community mindset over individualistic mindset
For many of us, to give less than 10% could not be considered to be generous. Although the NT does not teach tithing, it does teach generosity.
I like Brian Rosner’s point in Beyond Greed, where he says that we tend to carefully measure out how much we give, but are quite careless when it comes to spending money on ourselves.
[null]London 2012 Olympics: 'Snow bird' Skelton finds fabulous form in FloridaTelegraph.co.uk (blog)[{}]... owns most of the top rides of 2004 Olympic champion Rodrigo Pessoa); Tom Tisbo, CEO of Suncast, one of America's largest producer of domestic durables; and Kimberley Boyer, grand-daughter of the billionaire evangelical financier Robert Van Kampen.
[null]Mitt's Muffled SoulNew York Times[{}]Christ or Christianity came up repeatedly. Four years later, he still avoids the word, trumpeting his faithfulness without specifying the faith. What's surprising is that no one around him — not reporters, not rivals — talks about it all that much, ...
RSS Feed