What a lovely way to (re)connect. And thank you for giving this post such a careful and reflective reading. I will pass it on to Dick Ranck, who raised the question about the emotional side of relating to money.

I want to both agree with, and, “push back” against your reply. The agreement is wholehearted. Betsy and I have worked for years with a ministry at Church of the Savior in D.C. called Ministry of Money, having led workshops under their sponsorship around the country and travel seminars to Haiti and India. Participants write “money autobiographies” to unmask childhood memories relating to money that were so imprinting, thus impacting adult attitudes and behavior, both consciously and unconsciously, and thereby impacting relationships, especially husband and wife. We have wrestled with our own family legacies vis-a-vis money. There is a powerful emotional component.

But, much influenced by Peter Singer (see subsequent posts directly relating to Singer, and more recent ones about introducing giving to our grandchildren and guarding against reporting about our adult sons in unduly monetary terms), it has seemed important to address the “moral imperative” relative to money independently. Two or three years ago we monitored and logged every single expense for a year, down to the nickel. Each year we craft an expense-side budget, which we view as a “moral document.” We use what some call “reverse tithe” giving away what we do not spend — thus the 50% (in 2008, 75%) giving percentage. Yes, coming to that decision meant “facing through” emotional issues. Yes, it took a bit of courage. But we view it, above all, in moral terms.

I’ll welcome your response. Of course, the emotional side of money matters is foundational, unavoidable and difficult. But, I would argue, the moral side must “stand on its own right.” I do not want my emotional struggle to excuse a use of money that facilitates unnecessary death of even one of the human family’s children. Yes, I mean to be that direct!

Trust you are well . . . we are,

Howard

Perhaps oddly, I find myself drawn to the tension between the first commenter, D. Ranck, and your post, Howard. Yours, Howard, talks about money as a moral issue. Ranck’s post speaks of money as an emotional issue. And I think that’s an important distinction, one not bridged by your initial post.

Money is a toxic and taboo topic, in no small part, because of all the emotional layers put upon it. Money destroys marriages and tears friendships apart. How a father and mother spoke about money shapes a child, for better and for worse. Folks use it to make themselves happy and solve emotional issues. Money is just a system of barter, but we give it emotional meaning that it isn’t due. That’s unhealthy. So I think the process of coming to a healthy relationship with money comes through understanding one’s own “money autobiography,” so to speak.

I don’t think folks could come to the point of giving money away in the way you describe merely by deciding it to be so. I think your giving is courageous and bold. But I think, for others, such as someone who’s gotten into a pattern of unhealthy debt, it may be just as courageous to save.

My personal thought is that a healthy relationship with money would include both giving and saving. That is, that money becomes fluid, going in and out of your life — and not necessarily just in one direction.

(here’s the piece I wrote earlier this year: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2009/03/02/MNNJ164GU8.DTL)

I was directed here by Peter Singer’s Twitter update. I think lots of people will be too.
I think this is wonderful and I’m so glad you swallowed your shyness and published your story.
I’ve pledged on http://www.thelifeyoucansave.com and made one modest donation so far but have been sifting through other projects, narrowing it down to a few favoruites to decide who else to help…but your blog entry makes me think ‘why don’t I just give to all of them?!’ Why not?! I love that you just put a chunk of money aside and I think that’s what our family can do too.

Thank you for your inspiration.
Tinny

We teach a community-based program called Local Agenda that results in people launching a social venture. Part-time waitresses, ex-CEOs, moms, and Baby Boomers alike sign up for the 16 weeks, simply because they want to do something good with their lives. Some have an idea, some don’t. They just want to make a difference.

They soon exceed their own expectations about what they might do with their lives. Which brought us to build changexchange. People helping people. The catch is, we won’t list anyone on changexchange unless they have a sustaining strategy to allow them be self-sustaining and not rely on grants and charity only. So, back to money. The need for a handout (investment money) is short-term, so giving is a way to get someone started.

This is very early, but given the two of you and your work in this area, I’d love to hear your thoughts!

I have no solution to it. For which reason I try not to make it a priority toward satisfaction. It is after all a tool and a means to get other hands into and effecting a (profound) need; for when our hands or tools at hand don’t seem sufficent to the task. If this be true, then perhaps one solution is stronger hands? Better tools in the shed?

Being generous is just one of the most satisfactory experiences. I don’t think we should measure it by amount; but rather by sincerity. Howard, you certainly are a generous person and I think it’s admirable that you have set the financial contribution bar so high. But don’t feel bad about saving some for your own needs or changing expenses. Your most important contributions in my mind are interpersonal; and I speak from experience.