Charity and Wealth: Where Should Generosity Flow?

Charity and Wealth: Where Should Generosity Flow?

Charity is a wonderful thing. It makes us feel good when we serve others, and it feels good to have someone care for you. The world needs more charity and kindness, but who should that charity be directed toward? Ideally, you would assume everywhere to everyone. But what about charity to the wealthy 1% or even just those who are well-off? Probably not what society would expect. People do donate to the wealthy (which I find extremely odd), but for the most part, charity flows down from those with money to those with less. It would be unethical and inappropriate to ask those living on a dollar a day to donate to the billionaire class or even the millionaire class. This is an extreme example, but this dynamic plays out in everyday life among friends, family, and coworkers.

Charity Among Friends

When you go out for dinner with a friend who makes twice your income, would it be wrong to cover their bill? What if you treated them and paid for a meal once—would you expect them to treat you back? What if, instead of double, it was three times as much or four times as much? When is it no longer appropriate to be charitable to someone with more money than you? As long as everyone is consenting, charity should flow both ways—at least to some degree. However, it would be wrong for charity to constantly flow upward. Some people are more naturally giving than others, but they should not be giving constantly to those who have more, at least not in overall higher amounts. You are not supposed to keep track like it’s tit for tat, but everyone has a mental tally of who has been charitable to them in their life and by roughly how much. Charity can flow from upstream, but it should always balance out to more downstream.

Punishment for Success?

That’s a common refrain when we talk about progressive taxes, income redistribution, or means-tested assistance. The sentiment isn’t always wrong—being successful often comes with additional burdens. But let’s explore why society doesn’t extend charity to the wealthy, and why that might actually make sense.

Charity, at its core, is about need. It’s not about fairness in the mathematical sense—it’s about impact. A dollar is not equally valuable to everyone. For someone earning $40,000 a year, a $100 grocery bill hits a lot harder than it does for someone making $200,000. Even though the item costs the same, the cost in terms of life impact is vastly different.

Charity flows down not because society dislikes the rich, but because charity is most effective when given to those who need it. The less money you have, the more value each dollar holds. That’s why it doesn’t make sense to “give back” to the rich in the same way—we’re not trying to punish success; we’re trying to relieve suffering or empower the disadvantaged.

With success often comes higher taxes, fewer handouts, and less societal sympathy. That’s not necessarily a punishment—it’s just a byproduct of not needing help. If you're thriving, society assumes (rightly or wrongly) that you’re okay without assistance.

Is that unfair? Maybe. But consider this: part of what success brings is a decreased dependency on others. That’s the freedom wealth provides. You don’t have to rely on subsidies, discounts, or public programs. You have the power to choose and control your circumstances. That independence is a reward in itself.

Still, wealth doesn’t make life perfect. It comes with its own challenges—higher expectations, greater tax burdens, and sometimes, isolation. The more successful you are, the more you're expected to give back. That can feel unfair, especially when those efforts are met with criticism or resentment.

But it's important to recognize the role of scale. A 35% tax rate on someone earning $200,000 is not the same life impact as a 25% rate on someone earning $40,000. Just like dinner costs more to the person with less, so does every other expense. The burden is heavier when your margin is thinner.

Charity isn’t about making things perfectly equal—it’s about making them more livable. It’s about giving people a shot when they don’t have one. And yes, that means society focuses more on helping those with less. Not because the wealthy don’t matter. But because they’re already standing on higher ground.

Celebrity's asking for Charity

Marjorie Taylor Greene is, she is Republican U.S. Representative serving Georgia’s 14th congressional district. As a representative she earns an annual salary of $174,000 which would put her in the top 6% - 8% earner at around triple the average earner. When she started working her net worth was $700,000. Now only 4 years later she is worth $7.47 million to $36.47 million mostly because of her political connects and insider trading but we can save that for another post. Her current net worth easily puts her in the top 1% in America yet here she is posting on X asking her followers (who are not wealthy or in the 1%) to give money to her son to buy him a beer for his birthday. This is wrong and its not how charity should be flowing. I am sure her son is a great guy and some of her followers would be happy to give to him, but asking for charity when people are struggling with the cost of living crisis while being in the top 1% is extremely inappropriate. Its unfortunate she cannot ask for charity like a normal person and maybe she is not used to her newly found wealth, but its important to be sensitive to those who have much less. The 99% of Americans that have less than her. 

A more appropriate post might read, "It's my baby boy's birthday!! He's 22!! I love him so much! <3 First round of drinks are on me at (insert local bar). Hope to see you all there!". If someone at the bar offers to buy her son a drink, that is on them. No one is asked or guilted to give money to a multimillionaire's son.       

There are other celebrities that ask for charity, but its to save dogs, or whales or some preventable disease and that is completely different. They are using their fame to help make a difference in the world. Even though sometimes even using their fame to try and make a difference can be infuriating when the celebrity could take care of the problem themselves versus asking everyone else to help out. Such was the case with Dwayne Johnson and Oprah Winfrey asks their followers to donate after the Maui fires that devastated Hawaii. There combined net worth is 2.5 billion and they each donated $5 million each which is around $200 in comparison to a normal person. Not nothing, but they definitely won't feel it. The angry is understandable considering the wealth inequality and cost of living crisis but I feel it is slightly misplaced. They are asking for money not for them but for the people of Maui. Sure they could solve the problem just like Marjorie could just buy her son a beer, but those are real people with normal lives that just lost everything. Sure it seems a bit tone deaf coming from some of the rich people in the world, kind of like a firefighter asking for water to put out a fire. "You are the person who can solve this problem."   

  

The Power Dynamic of Charity

A sales rep coworker of mine once came by to sell me Girl Guide cookies at work. There is nothing wrong with this, but he was quite insistent on selling as many cookies as he could. This makes sense—he is a salesman, after all—but what felt inappropriate was the pressure he placed on those he was selling to. It’s the power dynamic of the situation. Here is a sales rep, one of the highest-paid positions, asking office workers—some of the most poorly paid employees—to buy cookies to help fund his daughter's troop. Why should people with less be funding and giving charity to someone who has more? Sure, you could argue they are getting overpriced cookies out of the exchange, but not if they were pressured into buying something they didn’t want. Charity should be given out of the goodness of one's heart, not through coercion. In fact, those in higher-earning positions should be the ones buying others’ cookies. 

Power and Wealth Dynamics

There is a power dynamic that happens with wealth. When you are broke, it is appropriate to ask for help—whether that be financial assistance, time, or labor, like helping someone move. Being charitable to those with more is not inherently wrong, but only if charity has flowed from them as well. For example, a wealthy friend asking his less fortunate friends to help him move would be reasonable if he had been generous to them in the past. However, if a wealthy friend consistently asks for favors while never reciprocating, then there is a problem. Charity needs to flow downhill. Most people are happy to serve those who have been kind and generous to them, but charity should not be a one-way street. 

One of my coworkers that reports to me was such a charitable person that they bought be a gift when I covered for them when taking time off. It was extremely kind but so unnecessary. As her boss is it my responsibly to cover her or find someone else to cover the position. Also as her boss I am making more money and thus in a more powerful position. If anything charity should be flowing from me to her. Now in the scheme of things we both didn't make very much money but still bosses should be buying things for their workers not the other way around. 

Ulterior Motive - Can You Never Give to Those Who Have More?

Is it wrong to give to someone who already has more than you? On the surface, it might seem backwards—but what if your boss is well-off and you invite him to dinner, hoping to make a good impression before promotion time? That doesn’t sound so bad—in fact, it’s a smart strategy.

This taps into a classic sales technique known as the reciprocity principle—a psychological “hack” that plays on our natural human instinct to return favors. When someone gives us something, we feel an unconscious obligation to give something back. Marketers use this all the time. Think about free samples at Costco, or a show home event offering complimentary snacks. The gift is small, but it creates a sense of indebtedness—and that makes you more likely to buy, or at least listen to the pitch.

But here’s where it gets tricky.

If you give a gift or perform a kind act only to get something in return—say, a favor, influence, or access—is it still generosity? Or is it manipulation?

It depends on intent.

If you donate to charity hoping for a tax break, or give a well-timed gift to someone influential, the act may look generous—but the motive may be strategic. Consider political donations or lobbying: money given with the clear hope of influence or policy shifts. These aren’t acts of selfless giving—they’re investments.

So when someone with less gives to someone with more, is it always manipulative? Not necessarily. But the thought is always there. What’s the intention? Are you giving because you're truly generous—or because you’re hoping to get an invite to their cottage?

It’s a fine line, and one worth reflecting on. 

Encanto and The Madrigals

The Disney movie Encanto portrays an interesting perspective on wealth and generosity. The Madrigals, a powerful family with special gifts, live in a beautiful (and magical) home high on a hill, larger than most houses in their village. When their home collapses, the villagers come together to help rebuild it—not out of obligation, but out of gratitude. The Madrigals had spent years serving their community, using their gifts to help those in need. Because they had given so much, the villagers were happy to give back when the time came. There was no envy or resentment, only appreciation and goodwill. This is how charity should work—when those with more give generously, others will willingly support them in times of need. The Madrigals were not hoarding their gifts like Scrooge McDuck swimming in gold; they were sharing them with their community.

Economic Circumstances and Privilege

Most people tend to befriend those of similar economic circumstances, so it’s important to be conscious of those who come from less fortunate means. "Check your privilege," as they say. You may not be having a hard time with the economy, but others could be. What may be affordable for you could be completely out of the question for someone else. When making plans with friends, it’s important to be mindful of financial disparities. If you can afford to eat at expensive restaurants or take costly trips, consider whether your friends are in the same position. True generosity is not just about giving money—it’s about understanding and accommodating others' financial realities.

Discussing finances is about as much of a faux pas as it gets. Sadly, as a society, we judge each other based on financial worth. We give more respect to those who have more money, assuming wealth equates to intelligence, hard work, or success. But respect should flow both ways, regardless of wealth. A person’s value should not be determined by their net worth but by their character and actions. A well-off individual should not automatically command respect, just as a person with less should not be looked down upon. True respect comes from mutual understanding and fairness, not from the size of one's bank account.

Conclusion: Where Should Charity Flow?

Charity should flow in all directions, but more often than not, it should move downward. Helping those in need is a core principle of humanity, but generosity should not be taken advantage of. Wealthier individuals should not expect charity from those who have less without reciprocation. The power dynamics of wealth influence friendships, family, and work relationships, and it’s essential to be aware of them. Ultimately, true generosity isn’t about money alone—it’s about fairness, understanding, and mutual support. When charity flows the right way, it fosters a world of kindness, rather than one of obligation or resentment.

If you found this helpful and would like help budgeting or investing please email me at taylormckeecoaching@gmail.com