DEAR JEANNE & LEONARD: For a number of years, my friend "Ted" has been giving $500 annually to a small local charity. (I support it, too.) The charity has always acknowledged the donations it receives in its annual report, with larger contributions receiving more attention than smaller ones. And for this organization, Ted's $500 is a very large gift. This year, however, the charity decided to simply list the names of all contributors alphabetically, without grouping them into size-of-gift categories. When Ted saw this, he laughed and said, "Well, I guess I'll give them 50 bucks next year." And he wasn't kidding. Don't you think Ted should be a bigger man and continue to contribute $500, even though now no one else in our community will know the size of his contribution?
-- M.T.
DEAR M.T.: Ever wonder why Carnegie Hall, for example, isn't called Anonymous Hall? It's because, while donors take pleasure in supporting the work of the charities to which they contribute, they also take pleasure in the recognition they receive. And there's nothing wrong with that. So to answer your question, no, we don't think Ted was small to react the way he did.
Instead of criticizing your generous friend, think about dropping a word in the appropriate ear at the charity you both support. Someone needs to tell them that they made a mistake in lumping $50 gift-givers with $500 gift-givers. Also, if you're concerned about the effect Ted's lowered contribution will have on the charity, you can always add $450 to your next donation.
DEAR JEANNE & LEONARD: My elderly mother receives a small Social Security check, plus the rental income from three houses she inherited. Unfortunately, owning these houses prevents her from qualifying for government-subsidized home health services, services that she needs and that are otherwise very expensive. My brother and I are thinking maybe Mom should transfer ownership of the houses to us, thus making her eligible for assistance. What do you think? We'd like to contribute to Mom's care ourselves, but if we owned the houses, we'd need the rental income for taxes, insurance and upkeep.
-- Don
DEAR DON: Why doesn't your mother sell one or two of the rental properties and use the money to buy the home health services she needs, rather than look to taxpayers to pick up her tab?
We realize we don't know the whole story, of course. But your mother apparently doesn't need the rent from all three houses to live on, or she wouldn't be considering transferring ownership to you and your brother. Plus, in your last sentence, you say that, after taxes and other expenses, the houses produce no income. So why not sell one or two?
We appreciate your family's desire to preserve these assets for the next generation. But to do so by taking title to your mother's three rental houses so that she can qualify for services intended for the needy would be, to put it bluntly, unethical.
Please email your questions about money, ethics and relationships to
Questions@MoneyManners.net
Family on 02/08/2017