PRINT
EMAIL
COMMENT
BUZZ UP
DIGG THIS
My best friend donates only to charities that support health, education and microcredit in the world's poorest nations. She argues that her donations have more impact there than in the U.S. and that America's poor are much better off -- in material comfort and opportunity for advancement -- than the poor of other nations.
But I believe that my first (and maybe my only) obligation is to my community and my country, especially with growing inequality of wealth in the U.S. Which is the more ethical position?
MORE MONEY & ETHICS | |||
 |
Walk Out On Your Mortgage? | ||
|
|
Should a Rich Kid Accept a College Scholarship? | ||
|
|
Failed CEOs Should Take Their Lumps | ||
Each of you has a good point, and I commend both of you for your thoughtfulness. Too few Americans give generously -- say, 10% or more of their annual income -- to charities either domestic or foreign. I hope that you and your friend can persuade each other to broaden your giving profiles.
You should select some charities that share America's good fortune with the very poor of the world in a cost-effective way. And she can easily find some U.S. charities that focus on critical needs in our own nation -- say, improving public education in depressed urban and rural areas.
How important is the bottom line?
I'm under pressure from my boss to replace a longtime supplier whose prices are substantially higher than another's. Our current supplier is known to pay better wages and benefits than other firms in its field. What's the ethical approach here?
It would be shabby to replace a longtime vendor without plenty of notice and a chance to improve its pricing. And the final decision should consider not just price but also quality, service, and the supplier's reputation for integrity and good employee relations. If your current supplier can meet you halfway on the other firm's price, I would hope your boss would see the benefit of honoring this long relationship.
Have a money-and-ethics question you'd like answered in this column? write to Editor in Chief Knight Kiplinger at ethics@kiplinger.com.
POSTED BY: Josh (August 18, 2008 04:49 PM)
My belief is that you can and should donate to both sides or to one charity that will do it for you. Changing suppliers should be avoided. Negotiate with your currrent supplier the best pricing and be done, for when your new supplier fails to meet your "expectations" the taste of that low, get the foot in the door, pricing will soon be bitter. 22 years in business has taught me many lessons.
POSTED BY: Rick (August 19, 2008 03:23 PM)
...Can you explain why the advice you give (to give to both domestic and foreign charities) is any more "ethical" than giving to one or the other? And how is it more ethical to pay higher prices to support another company's wages and benefits? If I was an employee or shareholder of this company, I would be very concerned to see someone placing higher importance on the employees of their vendor than on the employees and shareholders of their own company.
POSTED BY: Dogatemyfinances (August 27, 2008 06:07 PM)
I'm glad the judgmental, self-righteous writer of the charity letter isn't my friend...Who made anyone the ethical judge for your friend's contributions? Ugh.
Reprint Article
