Category Archives: ESTATE PLANNING

This is the place to discuss personal estate planning issues.

Philanthropic Analysis Paralysis

Face it, many of us “wonks” (which I lovingly use) in the philanthropic sector have become enamored with being able to measure things. We also like to complain a lot when we can’t measure something.

Lately, all of the talk has been on the various ways to measure an organizational outcome. Under Ken Berger’s leadership, Charity Navigator has set a new course and begun studying ways to incorporate measurement of outcomes into their charity rating system. I applaud Ken and Charity Navigator and believe that for too long, we have not been focusing donor attention on the entire picture. It is inherently good to ask the question, “How effective have you been at actually achieving the thing we’ve been giving you money for?”. To be able to create mechanisms that address that question could potentially have a huge impact and be a game changing moment for the nonprofit sector.

In my work as an investment adviser, I choose investments to put money into. For the most part, I frankly don’t care how much a company spent on advertising expenses or other overhead costs, I care about their earnings. I care about their dividend. I care whether the company is growing or contracting. I care how much market share they have relative to their competitors. These and other things tell me how healthy a company is. While it is useful to compare the overhead of Home Depot to Lowes, it is pointless in my opinion to compare it to Johnson & Johnson if you are interested in the metrics of the home improvement business. They do completely different things. Measuring the right things is something that we’ve done a poor job at and it seems like good people are committed to making real improvements to how we track effectiveness. This is long overdue. Have we missed something along the way though?

When I first started becoming interested in philanthropy as part of my business, I wanted to help charities tell the planned giving story. When I went to become a Certified Financial Planner™ Professional, I saw the tax wizardry of Charitable Remainder Trusts and was amazed when I saw that one could potentially leave more money to heirs through the use of these and other kinds of charitable vehicles. I thought, “Wow, why doesn’t everyone know about this?” I felt that many more people would give to charity if they knew what kind of tax benefit they could get and that if heirs actually wound up receiving more in the process, well that would certainly be a win for everyone but the government. Over time, I learned that while many people do give for tax reasons, more give because they are inspired to do so for one reason or another. They give from their heart. They give to give something back or to make a difference.

While the measurement issue is a critical one, let’s not lose sight of the fact that we also need to be focused on showing people the way into philanthropy. We need to be creating opportunities to make new philanthropists by showing the world that we all make a difference and have the ability to do so. I discovered philanthropy. A business coach asked me to write my own eulogy. After a few minutes of sitting there, staring at him, and thinking about the question, I answered. I said, “I guess I would want people to say I made a difference…” The rest is history.

Advertisements

5 Comments

Filed under ESTATE PLANNING, FINANCIAL PLANNING, FOUNDATIONS, NON-PROFIT & CHARITY, SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

The Taxpayer Certainty and Relief Act of 2009

BAUCUS UNVEILS LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE TAX CERTAINTY, RELIEF TO MIDDLE INCOME FAMILIES
Finance Chairman’s proposal makes permanent middle income tax rates, child tax credit, fixes estate tax and AMT for all Americans

Washington, DC – Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) today announced legislation that would make existing tax breaks permanent for working families and individuals including the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, and lower middle-income tax rates among other provisions. The measures were originally passed as part of tax legislation in 2001 and 2003, but are set to expire in 2010. Baucus unveiled his proposal after a Finance Committee hearing today that examined the affect of the current economy and the U.S. tax code on America’s middle class.

“Today we’re offering a piece of certainty during an uncertain time for millions of hard-working, honest Americans. These measures are not excessive or outrageous, but timely and targeted, and will build on earlier efforts to stabilize the economy,” said Baucus. “By guaranteeing a little extra cash in the pocket of working moms and dads, and by making sure that the AMT and the estate tax can move with the economy, we avoid sweeping tax increases for millions of American families. By promising spouses tax fairness in marriage, giving help to those helping others through adoption, and by giving lower-wage workers confidence at a critical time, we can restore our footing, and begin to climb back to a position of national strength and economic security.”

Original co-sponsors of the Baucus legislation include Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) and Charles Schumer (D-NY).

Elements of the Baucus proposal include:

– Permanent protection for more than 20 million Americans from being hit by the alternative minimum tax

– A measure to make permanent the 10, 25, and 28 percent individual tax rates, as established by the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001

– Permanence of the income eligibility threshold for the child tax credit, recently set at $3,000 by the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009, to give families up to $1,000 for every child under age 17

– For taxpayers in the 10, 15, 25, and 28 percent tax brackets, a proposal to make permanent a reduced tax rate on capital gains and dividends, as established in the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Act of 2003 and extended by the Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005

– Permanence of the marriage penalty relief provision, so that married couples will not be taxed more severely filing jointly than they would as two single persons filing separately

– Estate tax relief, making permanent 2009 levels for taxation of family possessions and property. The measure would also index exemption amounts for inflation

– Makes permanent the 45 percent credit rate for the refundable earned income tax credit for lower wage taxpayers with three or more children, as passed in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

– Permanent expanded assistance for families that adopt a child including a $10,000 tax credit per eligible child

– Makes permanent the 35 percent credit rate for child care expenses up to $3,000 for one child and $6,000 for two or more children
The Taxpayer Certainty and Relief Act of 2009

I. Permanent Middle Class Tax Relief

Individual Tax Rates. Current ordinary income tax rates are imposed at 10, 15, 25, 28, 33, and 35%. These tax rates expire at the end of 2010. The proposal would make permanent the 10, 25, and 28% tax rates. (The 15% tax rate is already permanent law.)

Capital Gains and Dividends. The proposal would make permanent the reduced tax rate on capital gains and dividends for taxpayers in the 10, 15, 25, and 28 percent brackets. The 2003 tax bill created a new tax rate of 15 percent (5 percent for low-and middle-income taxpayers, going to zero percent in 2008) for dividends. Prior to passage of this bill, dividends were taxed at ordinary income rates. The 2003 bill also reduced the capital gains tax rate from 20 percent (10 percent for low- and middle-income taxpayers) to 15 percent (5 percent for low- and middle-income taxpayers, going to zero percent in 2008). These reduced tax rates were originally set to expire at the end of 2008, but were extended until the end of 2010 in the “Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005” (TIPRA).

Child Tax Credit. Generally, a taxpayer may claim the child tax credit to reduce income tax liability by up to $1,000 for each qualifying child under the age of 17. If the amount of a taxpayer’s child tax credit is greater than the amount of the taxpayer’s income tax liability, the taxpayer may receive a refund if the income threshold is met. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 set the income threshold for child tax credit refundability at $10,000 (indexed). The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act decreased the threshold for the 2009 and 2010 tax years to $3,000. The proposal would make these changes to the child tax credit permanent.

Marriage Penalty. A “marriage penalty” exists when the combined tax liability of a married couple filing a joint return is greater than the sum of the tax liabilities of each individual computed as if they were not married. A “marriage bonus” exists when the exemption amounts and rate brackets are larger for the joint returns filed by married couples than for singles’ returns. As part of the 2001 tax cuts, the standard deduction for married filers was scheduled to increase annually until 2009. In addition, the bill eliminated the marriage penalty in the 15% tax bracket and for the earned income tax credit. The marriage penalty relief expires on December 31, 2010. The proposal would make the marriage penalty relief permanent.

Dependent and Child Care Credit. The dependent care credit allows a taxpayer a credit for paid child care expenses for qualifying children under the age of 13 and disabled dependents. The credit is 35% of eligible expenses. This rate decreases by 1% for each $2,000 of income above $15,000, but the rate never falls below 20%. Eligible expenses are limited to $3,000 for one child, and $6,000 for two or more children. (After 2010, the amount of eligible expenses returns to the pre-2001 amounts of $2,400 for one child and $4,800 for two or more. In addition, the 35% credit rate decreases to 30% and the income threshold decreases to $10,000.) The proposal would make 2009 law permanent.

Earned Income Tax Credit. The EITC is a refundable tax credit available to low wage workers. Because the credit is refundable, a taxpayer will receive a refund if the amount of the EITC is greater than the amount of the income tax liability or if no income tax liability exists. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act increased the credit rate for taxpayers with three or more children from 40% to 45% and increased the phase out range for all married couples filing a joint return (regardless of the number of children) by $1,880. The proposal would make these changes permanent.

Adoption Credit and Adoption Assistance Programs. Current law allows a maximum adoption credit of $10,000 per eligible child and a maximum exclusion of $10,000 per eligible child. These benefits are phased-out for taxpayers with modified adjusted gross income in excess of certain dollar levels. These tax incentives go back to $5,000 per child ($6,000 for child with special needs) after 2010. The proposal would make 2009 law permanent.
II. Permanent Alternative Minimum Tax Fix

For the 2009 tax year, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided a patch for the AMT, setting the exemption amount at $46,700 (individuals) and $70,950 (married filing jointly), and allowed the personal credits against the AMT. When this patch expires, the exemption amounts will return to $33,750 (individuals) and $45,000 (married filing jointly) and the personal credits will not be allowed against the AMT. The proposal would make the 2009 exemption levels permanent and index them for inflation. In addition, the proposal will permanently allow the personal credits against the AMT.
III. Permanent Estate Tax Relief

Under current law, U.S. citizens and residents must pay taxes on transfers of property both during life and at death. These taxes are due under three separate tax systems: the estate tax, the generation-transfer skipping tax, and the gift tax. Currently, the top tax rate for all three taxes is 45%. Both the estate and generation-skipping transfer taxes currently have a $3.5 million exemption for individuals ($7 million for couples). The gift tax has an exemption of $1 million ($2 million for couples). For the 2010 tax year, the estate and generation skipping transfer taxes are repealed. In the same year, the gift tax rate will fall to 35%. In 2011, the estate, generation skipping transfer, and gift taxes are scheduled to revert back to pre-2001 levels, with an exemption of $1 million, a 55% rate, and a 5% surtax on large estates.

The proposal would make permanent the 2009 estate, gift, and generation skipping transfer tax laws going forward and index the exemption amount. The proposal would also reunify the estate and gift taxes. In addition, the proposal would allow portability of exemption for spouses. Finally, the proposal would increase the amount available under the special use valuation revaluation to equal the estate tax exemption.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under ESTATE PLANNING, FINANCIAL PLANNING, TAX

Is Obama’s Estate Tax Plan The Nail In The Nonprofit Coffin?

We folks who deal with high net worth clients have wondered for years what will happen with estate taxes when the current plan sunsets in 2011. Let me make a guarantee here (which is something I don’t often do). I guarantee that estate taxes will be addressed before 2010 which is when they are set to return to zero and return to 2001 levels when 2011 begins. Already, congress is abuzz with talk about what to do about it. Frankly the estate tax has been the running joke in the planning community for years when congress said that the estate tax would disappear in 2010. People said that they would start to write special instructions for “pulling my plug”, but only if it were advantageous from an estate tax planning perspective. All kidding aside, regarldless of what gets decided, I guarantee that there will be implications. As The NY Times reported in 2005, the last time there was talk about eliminating the estate tax, charities remained shockingly silent for fear that any attempts to block the measure would be donor suicide. I mean really, would you give to a charity that intentionally lobied for higher estate taxes? Are you crazy? Make no mistake, this time, I guarantee there will be legislation being passed and it will have a major impact on both the wealty, and nonprofits.

While many in the nonprofit community have been quite vocal against Obama’s plan to lower the charitable tax deduction, if history is any guide, I don’t think they will be speaking up now. Perhaps they should. I believe that the changes to the estate tax will have a much bigger impact on charities than the income tax deduction. Charities felt that they had nothing to lose by speaking up on the proposed change to the deduction because the change would be bad for BOTH the wealthy, AND the charities. By lowering the deduction, the wealthy would be losing a tax incentive to give to charity (perceived as bad for the wealthy), and the charities would be hurt by that. Nobody had a problem speaking up to say this was a bad idea. The estate tax is a completely different animal and I would argue, will hurt charities much more than the income tax deduction. Have you heard anyone talking about this? Nope. This will be a silent walk to the grave for the nonprofits. Here’s how it will happen.

Year/ Exclusion Amount /Max Top tax rate:
2001 $675,000 55%
2002 $1 million 50%
2003 $1 million 49%
2004 $1.5 million 48%
2005 $1.5 million 47%
2006 $2 million 46%
2007 $2 million 45%
2008 $2 million 45%
2009 $3.5 million 45%
2010 repealed 0%
2011 $1 million 55%

In the above chart, notice that the estate tax exemption amounts have been going up since 2001. From 2001 until 2008, the exemption amounts didn’t go up that much; essentially from $1-2 million. The period from 2001 to 2002, up until recently, was the worst period of time for the markets since the great depression. While the exemption amounts did go up slightly from $675,000 to $1 million dollars, that was not a big increase in real dollars for the wealthy. From 2003 up until 2008, the stock market experienced a bull market while the exemption amounts only increased from $1 million to $2 million. This year however, the exemption amounts went to $3.5 million. That means that a husband and wife can leave $7 million dollars free from federal estate taxes. Compare that to only $2 Million total in 2002 ($1 million for each individual), and that’s a lot of extra millions. Let’s add somthing else here. Portfolios are down much more than the last recession. This means that exemption amounts are much higher, and people have less money. Well that’s great for the wealthy right? How about for the nonprofits? They are still talking about how the drop in the income tax chariable deduction is going to impact them. Folks, wake up, you have a new problem. It’s called the estate tax. While nonprofits have had lots of other things to deal with lately, I fear that what’s being discussed with the estate tax is going to be yet another blow to their ability to continue to operate as they had been.

Before the wealthy shoot me here, let me point out that there’s a fine balancing act that needs to take place here. Nonprofits play an essential role in society and they perform many responsibilities for society that the government isn’t good at and has no place in. If charities are not fundamentally strong, society is worse off and someone else needs to pick up the slack. If the government needs to do more, guess what, that means we all will wind up paying higher taxes anyway. It’s in our nation’s interest to make sure they remain financially healthy.

At present, the latest word on the street is that the Democrats support leaving the estate tax at the current level of $3.5 million. The exemption amount has never been this high before and only time will tell how much of an impact that will have on charities and donations. In my business, avoiding paying estate taxes is one of the primary functions that a wealth manager helps clients peform. While emotion has been the primary driver of charitable contributions, not taxes, I fear there’s a perfect storm that is lining up. For many in the wealth managent community, charity is only a means of avoiding taxes for their clients. Unless an adviser can use charity as a way to save taxes for their clients, they generally don’t bring it up. Doing so means less under management for the adviser and that translates directly to less fees. I assure you, right now, many advisers are just struggling to keep their doors open and discussing charity with their client is the last thing on their mind. The big question is, how many potential donors were lost by dropping investment portfolio values, raising the estate credit amounts from $2 million to $3.5 million, and cutting the charitable income tax deduction?

Just to be clear, I would be in favor of  freezing the estate exemption limits. I feel people pay enough in taxes and they shouldn’t have to pay again when they die. Make no mistake though, this will be another blow for charities. Don’t drop the charitable tax deduction, raise it, by a lot. I’d also be in favor of paying higher income taxes to pay for things like universal health care, education, and alternative energy. I realize you can’t have your cake and eat it too, I just worry that the cake recipe is looking like pie and we’re all going to get some in the face if we don’t think these things through more clearly.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under ESTATE PLANNING, FOUNDATIONS, NON-PROFIT & CHARITY, TAX

Nonprofit Recession Survival Guide to Getting Donations

First the markets, then Madoff, now the Obama administration is proposing reductions in the charitable tax deduction for your biggest donors. What else could possibly go wrong? Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the snow day and nobody came to work. One thing is for certain; raising funds in the current environment is much more difficult that it was last year at this time. Here are some specific suggestions and things to keep in mind as you talk to donors:

Speak the Unspoken Truth
Personally, I like this tactic. Call it like it is. What are the most powerful four words in the English language? “I NEED YOUR HELP”. Talk to your existing donors about what is happening and the state of your organization. Tell them you need help. Let your donors know how the current environment is impacting your organization.

Be Specific With The Ask
This is something that is always a good idea. Even before the mess the last year, donor fatigue was certainly an issue. I believe that in general, nonprofits do a poor job marketing themselves when it comes to being specific about their accomplishments, how donations help, and making specific connections between the ask and the impact. Kiva.org is the opposite of everything I just said. Their supporters choose the cause (lending to a specific entrepreneur who needs a loan), and Kiva reports back on the status of the loan from the individual it was given to. It’s a terrific example of the donor getting involved directly with the cause that they support. Strategic, venture, or tactical philanthropy; call it what you want, people have been demanding more accountability in recent years. This trend towards greater accountability and transparency is only likely going to increase. Help your donors go from a “spray and pray” approach go giving, to being focused and knowing exactly what they are giving to.

Create A Donor Adviser Panel
Invite your top donors into a room for a “Manhattan Project” style round table. The objective of the group is not to gang up on them and tell them how badly you need their money, but to come together and brainstorm new ideas for raising funds. Let them know how much you have appreciated their past support and you are offering them a “no money required” way to help make a huge difference with the organization. Ally you want is their input. Not only will they feel appreciated, do you think there might be a possibility they could cough up a little extra after sitting in on that? If I were a betting man, I’d say your odds are pretty good. That’s not the objective though. Remember that. You are after their ideas and things you are not thinking about right now.

Address Financial Fear
Your donors are shell shocked with what’s going on in the markets now. Everyone is. Do you want to be someone’s hero? Address this head on. This is the one I think that nonprofits have traditionally been the most uncomfortable with. Even large organizations that have planned giving departments have struggled with “the line of control” that exists between donors and their professional advisory team. While planned giving folks want to “get that seat at the table”, and be INVOLVED in the conversation with the financial adviser, attorney, or CPA at the time giving decisions are being made, often they are not. Understand that there is a line, and there should be. Generally speaking, the unspoken truth is that donors know that planned giving officers have one motive, to get money for their organization. This is nothing new though, so what?

The real opportunity to be a hero here is to talk about some of the things that donors are afraid of now and things that they can do to feel more financially secure. The number one concern of the wealthy is that they will lose what they have. While this has always been the biggest concern, the fear is now being realized. Understand that unless your donors feel financially secure, they will likely not give at the levels they had given previously. You cannot help them feel more secure, but you can make recommendations that will. One of the things that’s at the top of the list is recognizing that donors and high net worth clients traditionally have had multiple advisers giving them advice. Their accountant is discussing their returns, their attorney discusses their will (or might not have in a while), and their “financial adviser” is talking only about their investments. Most people have no idea who they should be talking to about the big picture and their ability to achieve what’s important to them.  No wonder you have such a hard time getting a seat at the table, that’s because there usually IS NO table. The advice your donors receive is sporadic and fragmented in professional silos and generally NOBODY is discussing the big picture! Markets aside, the tax changes occurring are faster than the drop in their portfolio value and now is a good time for them to be meeting with their team to reassess where they are and reevaluate their goals.

The key to success lies in your ability to have a trusted relationship with your donor, understand what attracted them to you, what inspires them, what they are afraid of, and how to connect them with the appropriate resources who can help them achieve everything that’s important to them. To the extent you make yourself a master networker and not make it about you and your cause, you’ll be a hero. Ask your donors, “How can I help, YOU?”

Bookmark and Share

1 Comment

Filed under Current Events, ECONOMY, ESTATE PLANNING, Financial Life Planning, FINANCIAL PLANNING, INVESTING, NON-PROFIT & CHARITY, TAX, venture philanthropy

Is Obama’s Plan to Cut Charitable and Mortgage Deductions Really Stimulus?

The news is out. President Obama announced plans to cut the deductions for charitable contributions and mortgage interest incurred for Americans who earn more than $250,000 per year and raise the top tax bracket from 35% to 39.6%. I have some very sharp opinions about this proposal. For the sake of full disclosure, I voted for Obama but am a registered Republican. I vote issues and people, not along party lines. You might say I am socially liberal but fiscally conservative. That said, I have big problems with this proposal. Watch a CBS News Video about the plan here.

When I went to school to become a Certified Financial Planner Professional™, economics was one of the things they taught. Specifically, they discussed the role that taxes play within the government, how the Fed and IRS work, and how it is the job of the Executive Branch to drive an agenda through tax policy. Generally speaking, I believe Republicans perceive that adjusting taxes downward equals growth through increased investment, while Democrats view taxes as a way to redistribute wealth. While this is a simplistic way of looking at things, this is exactly the way I see the proposed tax changes that Obama introduced.

I believe that changes in tax policy direct our actions. For example, generally given the choice of withdrawing money from an IRA versus a taxable brokerage account, I would typically recommend that people first take from the taxable account because capital gains rates are typically lower than ones income tax rate that they would be subject to if withdrawing funds from the IRA account. The tax benefit drives the actions. Add a 10% penalty for an early withdrawal on top of an ordinary income tax rate, and the IRA quickly becomes the funding source of last resort. Taxes and penalties drive the behaviors of Americans. Good tax policy is meant to create healthy economies. That is exactly the opposite of what Obama’s proposal does.

Charities are struggling to keep their heads above water right now and the housing market has already gone under. The housing mess is the most pressing issue facing the economy in my view. While the government struggles to pay for all of the various “stimulus” packages, charities that provide essential services for the needy, the arts, and everything else are closing their doors in record numbers due to a combination of losses incurred from the stock market and lost donations from their donor base. In my opinion, the last thing the Obama administration should be doing is creating ANY disincentives away from charitable donations or from mortgage deductions. While some may say that this only impacts the wealthy, we all know how Wall Street has come to Main Street in the last year.

Mr. President, you should be INCREASING the mortgage and charitable deductions to INCENT people into these areas, not reducing them. Rich, poor, it doesn’t matter because while these initiatives may not take effect for some time, perception is reality when it comes to human assumptions. The dire economic situation that the nonprofit and real estate sectors face need all the help they can get in order to be put back on a more solid footing. I believe in the end, these moves do nothing but exacerbate an already bad situation in two of the areas that now require the most help.

Traditionally, charitable contributions have served as a great way to reduce taxes and everyone won. Charities provided services that the government wasn’t as good at providing, Americans got a tax deduction for funding them, and the government didnt’ have to do that job. Everyone won. By changing this balance now with charities struggling already, this will mean less donations, force charities to close due to ANOTHER financial setback caused by poor government policy, and put the onus of providing the services that these charities provided, squarely back on the government’s shoulders. This sounds like a very Democratic thing to do from a fiscal standpoint. As a fiscally conservative Republican, I fear the consequences this will have on the system at a time of such economic distress. There are lots of things I don’t agree with in the Republican party (like energy and environmental policies for one), but when it comes to this proposal, I would never side with the Democrats on this. It stinks.

Last year, I wrote a review of  a terrific book called  “Who Really Cares?”, about the giving habits of Americans, and specifically, Republicans versus Democrats. Since we are on the subject. It might be a good refresher for those thinking about cutting areas that impact giving. It was a great book that anyone interested in this subject should read.

Bookmark and Share

13 Comments

Filed under Current Events, ECONOMY, ESTATE PLANNING, FINANCIAL PLANNING, FOUNDATIONS, INVESTING, NON-PROFIT & CHARITY, TAX

The Good Apples- Rise of the New York Philanthropic Advisor Network

What’s the definition of philanthropist? What are the biggest problems facing philanthropy today? How can we philanthropic advisors do a better job serving our clients who are interested in making a difference? What problems are high net worth clients having in discussing philanthropy with their advisors? What words of wisdom and advice do people like Bill Gates, Sr. have for us to make philanthropy easier to carry out? These questions and others are among the ones that we will be asking at the New York Philanthropic Advisor Network.

What originally began in Seattle as the Seattle Philanthropic Advisor Network (SPAN), an idea by Randy Ottinger of LMR advisors, is quickly springing up in other cities around the US. The idea? Have the biggest names in philanthropy talk to advisors who represent the gatekeepers of client wealth and teach them to be better philanthropic advisors. The idea took root in Seattle attracting such speakers as; Bill Gates Sr (watch the talk here)., Paul and Debbie Brainerd, Bill Neukom, Julia Boltz, and veteran philanthropic experts, Phil Cubeta and Tracy Gary. Now the idea has come to the Big Apple.

We are looking for potential speakers for our lunch discussion. Email me rkrasney@rjkwealth.com if you would like to find out more about the group or have ideas for potential speakers.

Bookmark and Share

1 Comment

Filed under ESTATE PLANNING, FINANCIAL PLANNING, NON-PROFIT & CHARITY, SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP

Re: Jabs at my fellow Social Entrepreneurs

In my previous post, I may not have conveyed all the things that I intended so let me set the record straight here.

First. I take no shots at social entrepreneurs actually doing things and I firmly believe that there are no right or wrong ways to give. Whether one chooses to write a check, or get their hands dirty, they should be applauded for actually taking an action. There are many examples of wonderful folks doing wonderful work as were highlighted in the comments left. I take issue when people have their head in the right place, but don’t actually don’t do anything. As for the folks who DON’T have their head in the right place to begin with, well those folks just don’t get it anyway and they aren’t the ones reading any of this stuff anyway.

I disagree that capitalism is the cause of the problem. The problem is deeply rooted in the fears we have to take chances on what we believe, even when there is a risk of failing, and doing what is right instead of accepted as convention. I also blame the financial system as a whole in creating an environment of mistrust and creating the very roadblocks of mistrust that keep those with big hearts from stepping forward and asking for help.

I don’t think we are all granola eating tree huggers at all. For one thing, I don’t even like granola all that much (actually I do like it, but don’t tell). Social entrepreneurism has enormous potential and continues to gain in popularity each day. If we want to not be viewed as the “tree hugging granola eaters”, we need to continue to take action based on what we believe, not just talk about it. We must follow the path of those who have succeed and get advice on how to make our dreams become realities. Despite the fact sometimes it appears that the entire financial industry is out to eat investors for lunch, there are fellow social entrepreneurs who care, and caring advisors who want to help you folks make a difference. From this side of the table though, I have seen far to many folks who are just interested in making their portfolios a big as possible, not happy with their life, and wondering why in the world their financial success hasn’t translated into true happiness. For those of you who actually do something (and there are many), thanks for caring AND doing something. Those of you who want to create great things with your wealth can come to the front of the line, the rest can take a number.

Leave a comment

Filed under A WORK IN PROGRESS, ESTATE PLANNING, FINANCIAL PLANNING, NON-PROFIT & CHARITY, SOCIAL ENTREPRENEURSHIP