Last week I was interviewed by Elle Griffin of The Elysian on Substack Live about “How To Be A Good Rich Person.” Our conversation made me think about whether we give "enough" in terms of money.
Great entry ! I have a friend who I’m sure you would not consider rich but to me anyone who can afford fancy vacations, a big house with a pool and never worries about money rich. He told me that he felt he didn’t do enough for the world. I suggested he donate to the cat rescue where I volunteer weekly. We make no money, are all volunteer, and every penny goes to the cats. He investigated and set up a sizable monthly donation. I send him pictures every week of the hungry kitties eating his donation in cat food. He gives money, I give several hours of time each week. Is it enough ?
What I love about this is that you’ve directed him to support an organization where somebody of means can have a major effect. The ratio of the donated dollar to the bottom line of the organization might be more important than the ratio. Of the dollar donated to the net worth of the donor.
I think enough is the sweet spot between duty and resentment. It may fluctuate week to week. I had a public service career (criminal defense attorney) and was “underpaid” in comparison to corporate attorneys. But I loved it despite the low pay, long hours, occasional danger, and constant, grinding effort for tiny reward. I was immersed in the effects of poverty on the spirit, the lack of hope for any future change, and the need to constantly juggle expenses that my clients and their families experienced. I know that sometimes if they got an unexpected windfall, it would be “blown” on temporary pleasure. It was frustrating to be able to see how easy it is to fall and how hard it is to claw oneself out of poverty. So, to return to your question: you give as much as you can. When you feel frustrated and overwhelmed because it’s never enough, you turn your attention to changing the structures that keep the boot on the neck of the unlucky. You remember you are not special; you are lucky. You do owe the world, you must give back. I don’t have a fortune. I was so burnt out and sad at the end of my career that I retreated from everyone. I’m coming out of that long hibernation now because everything I believed in and worked for, over decades, is in the shitter. Until change comes to the WH, I can’t stay quiet. I dedicated myself to the fine principles of the Constitution. That asshole and his compliant lackeys in Congress are destroying it. I will not be silent.
The "How much is enough?" question will always be specific to us as individuals. As a former Acupuncturist, burnout was a common phenomenon in the helping professions, because when your occupation puts you in daily, intimate contact with sometimes overwhelming human suffering--and assuming you're not a narcissistic or sociopathic asshole--you want to do more, to help more. But then run the risk of giving too much time and other resources, to the point where our own health (and sanity) begin to fray. Which in turn degrades our effectiveness.
"The archetype of the wounded healer" was introduced to me by mentors as the dynamic that needs to be explored and to some degree understood by all of us who enter the healing profession. As a way of creating some sort of sustainable answer to that essential question.
That's a really good point. I sometimes worry that the executive directors of these grass roots organizations are so motivated to help that they risk their own health and well being. They seem to be "on" 24/7.
The One True Religion--Buddhism, of course--teaches that if personal compassion outweighs love, gratitude and equanimity (the four essential, or 'spiritually grownup' emotions), then we become unbalanced.
When we become unbalanced, we put the well-being of not only ourselves, but also the people and causes we care about, at risk.
In both Transpersonal Psychology and Alternative Medicine, it can be argued that when we strongly empathize with--i.e., feel--another's pain, and allow our perception of that pain to shape us, to the point that it becomes a serious burden, that we're in deep shit. Other emotional constructs then follow; like guilt that we can't relieve their suffering. And then neuroses over the guilt, and so on.
Learning to differentiate our own intrinsic suffering from that of others (almost always parents and siblings); and then choosing to (at least temporarily or conditionally) put down the non-self portion, is the essential step of solving the Wounded Healer archetype.
I'm with you that silence is a terrible option. We have to fight despair and do what we can. The people in poverty you dealt with and the people we indirectly support through the organizations we give to are most at risk from Trump and his lackeys.
This isn't a question for the wealthy but for everyone. It's also a question without an answer. The point is to grapple with the question often and in a way that is honest with ourselves and others. That you do and do well. As my mother used to say, "A blessing on your head".
The answer to how much has to be deeply personal and tied to what causes and why. I think the latter are more important, even. Removing harmful mold from a multigenerational home, as you described, is to me more important than a larger donation to an NGO with a public company style executive structure or an already well-financed foundation or university endowment. I don’t believe in straight-up effective altruism, because I want people like you to also support the cultural philanthropy that those people can’t quantify, but I would suggest that the Bronx Museum or the Brooklyn Museum would benefit more per dollar given than the Met.
All I mean to say is that there are so many ways to do tremendous good whether or not you meet some other person’s threshold of “enough.” If you’ve made one home healthy, the observation “why did you not do a hundred or a thousand?” Is not, to me, much of a critique.
Thanks for the comment Michael. The Met does not seem to be hitting as it continues to expand its footprint in multiple directions. So yeas I agree that supporting orgs. where you can make a difference is better/more satisfying. It's taken me a while to figure that out.
I'm in awe of the public nature of this conversation. When do we ever hear of rich people talking about the nitty gritty of what they give?? Well done! Great post. The question of "what is enough?" brings up the question of "what is definitely NOT enough?" for me - when thinking about billionaires who pay peanuts in tax.
There's some interesting figures on the degrees to which some legendary Oligarchs and their families give. Or do not.
On one side of the spectrum you have folks like the Gates, or MacKenzie Scott; who give away 33% of their income, or literally billions of their net worth, respectively. While on the other, are skinflints like the heirs of the Walmart fortune, who give next to nothing.
A lot of people ,the ones who study this sort of thing are now highly critical of the Philanthropy practiced by Gates and others. They see it as political and manipulative. And self-serving too.
This may be. Which supports the argument for restoring pre-Bush taxation levels so that the 99% must not be held hostage to the philanthropic whims of billionaires.
But we live in an era where extreme wealth--and the extremely wealthy--are fetishized as something akin to demigods. Especially from the Conservative side of US opinion, where they've simply read too much Ayn Rand, imo.
Thanks David. I'm looking forward to it. A lot of people will be interested to read it.
Might be an entirely different essay but I'm just learning about Trump's Gold card visa for Billionaires. What I'm understanding is that no billionaire would pay for this unless they were exempt from paying global taxes. Could that happen...idk?
I wonder if instead of looking at it from the giver, what if you were to look at it from the receiver's perspective? As a receiver, the act of someone giving anything to me or an organization I was working with was a huge gift. The amount was *almost* immaterial.
For example, if the amount allowed an athlete to fund the race wheelchair they needed to compete at the highest level, then it was enough. If the amount was able to fund a wholesale build out of a coaching registration, certification and training program that would benefit athletes and coaches alike, then it was enough. For that specific purpose.
My experience is more from the perspective of soliciting funds and having donors such as yourself and your family, who are invested in the longer term vision of an organization is worth so much more than just the dollars you are able to give. It's a knowing that if there is a need, there is an ability to tap into the expertise of donors such as yourself to assist in specific projects as needed. And just as you don't want to be giving too much to one organization, I know as a leader of one that relied on fundraising, it's no good to have all our eggs in one basket either. I'm sure the organizations and writers you support would say you are doing more than enough. Your wealth is your business and giving anything is very generous IMO.
Thanks Kim. I tend to get embarrassed when Im thanked by the leaders of the orgs. we support. To hear your perspective, then, is really helpful and encouraging!
Fascinating read, David. With wealth inequality reaching historic highs (U.S. billionaires’ wealth surged by over 50% in the past decade), how has this shift affected the culture of philanthropy, if at all, in your view?
I think about what government can do and what philanthropy can do. I think there's about $500 billion in giving in the U.S. annually. But it's hard to know how much of that goes to help people in need. We do know, however, that cuts in state and Federal benefits that are currently being proposed such as to Medicaid will put a tremendous burden on people in need and could overwhelm much if not all the poverty fighting giving done privately.
Love this post David along with the thoughtful and reflective comments. I lead a small nonprofit org that serves people globally with a rare incurable cancer. I wish more individuals would consider the wide range of orgs that do great work who struggle with funding Bhat said, agree it’s a personal decision and the question of enough is personal. I’ve devoted the last 20+ years in some way to this community, 14 as the paid leader. Certainly the salary - with no benefits- is lower than in a corporate job - and I sometimes feel like I’m stealing from the org taking my salary. At the same time, I am passionate about supporting other causes & efforts outside of my space & often wonder why others in my circle who have way more financial means than I do never consider giving in any philanthropic way either in money or time or resources. Boggles my mind.
The way you contribute your time is priceless. I think giving is something that is addictive in a good way and that people who don't do out are missing out on one of life's greatest experiences.
I can't help to think that underlying this may be more of a self-affirmation problem ...measuring one's achievement in terms of disposable wealth...private schools, academic institutions are notorious for capitalizing on this human weakness. Might be more important to give less and more consistently to those things that move you.
Thanks Ellen for the comment. In our earlier days of giving we did focus on the bigger institutions. But we've realized that it;'s far more satisfying to give to smaller ones. And consistency is really important.
There are definite Halachas of how much a Jew is supposed to give, and how much he is not allowed to give (over a certain amount). The specifics are complicated in terms of: is it yours yet, or is it just a growth on the graph (like, did you sell the stock, is it a dividend?etc). Everyone, including poor people, are supposed to give 10% of their income away (as you wrote, who receives this is another question). Many people who have a somewhat higher income give 20%. From my understanding, one is not supposed to give more than 20% to tzedaka, but one would need to ask a halachic authority if one is interested, for an individual assessment. In any case, you are a generous person, and it sounds like you have educated your children to be generous. An excellent character trait.
Thanks Liba. That's interesting about the limit of 20%. I suppose it's to make sure that you're not neglecting your own family. Being a Mrs. Jellyby if you're familiar with Dickens'; Bleak House. Maimonides' ranking of charitable acts is also fascinating.
I give very little monetarily— almost nothing right now — because I don’t have enough for even a modest retirement and I’m prioritizing giving a very high percentage of my income to a family member in need — I have one entire side gig that I work in order to help that family member. However, I have always considered that the career I chose was in itself a gift. I worked quite long hours for low pay in community journalism, which served and greatly improved my community. Now that nobody is doing that work locally (because a hedge fund destroyed local journalism and threw us into a news desert) the negative effect on local governance is profound. I always hope that the day will come when I’ll have more resources available to share, but it’s unlikely to happen. When my children were small and I was a SAHM, I did quite a lot of volunteer work. I always thought I’d return to that once I retired, but it seems retirement isn’t going to happen for me. I do give my time to a couple of organizations. Probably the best I can hope for is not to require charity.
If a life is measured at the end by not how much one has accumulated but rather by how much one has given away, the question of how much is enough becomes irrelevant. I have recommended to several families with accumulated wealth that they establish a family foundation which continues to give to preferred charities in perpetuity, an endowed fund. The kids sat on the Board of the Foundation to be sure the money was going to those places at the top of the list. Because the fund was invested wisely, it continued to grow over time and produce more income, a percentage of which was given away every taxable year. Grants and contributions were open to applicants within prescribed field such as education, the environment, health care and research, and perhaps in your case, poverty and hunger, some of the pressing social issues in local communities.
Great article. I know today it’s common for Jews to continue the practice of giving 10% to charity. Also the US is considered the most charitable country in the world according to Charities Aid Foundation.
Thanks Cariisa. America is the most philanthropic country. But that is paired with having the least generous social safety net among our peers. So when we add it all together, are we generous or have we outsourced some basic services and standards of living? It's something that's been increasingly on my mind, especially with the possibility of cuts to medicaid.
That is exactly what gives me agita. Not supporting the least among us but counting on private philanthropy to do so seems inhumane to me. Especially as the country has gotten so much bigger and more diverse and familes more geographically dispersed. It’s not that we can’t, as a country, afford to provide a minimum standard of living, it’s that ‘we’ choose not to do so. And as I read your posts, it reminds me that it’s time to do our household review of our giving for 2025. The need is great and will only grow under the current government. One thing I struggle with (we’re comfortable but much of our income now that we’re over 70 is Social Security ) is how to do that 30 year spreadsheet and be sure we can tend to our needs over that period. Time for some ‘what ifs’. Always appreciate your posts and wisdom.
All I know is that there very few (if any) people in this world that I know who are as generous and thoughtful as you and Debbie. To me and my definition of what makes a good (rich) person, what matters most is how you carry yourself and treat others, and how connected with your heart you are. Quality, not quantity…
Great entry ! I have a friend who I’m sure you would not consider rich but to me anyone who can afford fancy vacations, a big house with a pool and never worries about money rich. He told me that he felt he didn’t do enough for the world. I suggested he donate to the cat rescue where I volunteer weekly. We make no money, are all volunteer, and every penny goes to the cats. He investigated and set up a sizable monthly donation. I send him pictures every week of the hungry kitties eating his donation in cat food. He gives money, I give several hours of time each week. Is it enough ?
What I love about this is that you’ve directed him to support an organization where somebody of means can have a major effect. The ratio of the donated dollar to the bottom line of the organization might be more important than the ratio. Of the dollar donated to the net worth of the donor.
I agree with you abut April's initiative.
April, that sounds extremely impactful and worthwhile.
Thank you for coming back to the topics you danced around last week!
I think enough is the sweet spot between duty and resentment. It may fluctuate week to week. I had a public service career (criminal defense attorney) and was “underpaid” in comparison to corporate attorneys. But I loved it despite the low pay, long hours, occasional danger, and constant, grinding effort for tiny reward. I was immersed in the effects of poverty on the spirit, the lack of hope for any future change, and the need to constantly juggle expenses that my clients and their families experienced. I know that sometimes if they got an unexpected windfall, it would be “blown” on temporary pleasure. It was frustrating to be able to see how easy it is to fall and how hard it is to claw oneself out of poverty. So, to return to your question: you give as much as you can. When you feel frustrated and overwhelmed because it’s never enough, you turn your attention to changing the structures that keep the boot on the neck of the unlucky. You remember you are not special; you are lucky. You do owe the world, you must give back. I don’t have a fortune. I was so burnt out and sad at the end of my career that I retreated from everyone. I’m coming out of that long hibernation now because everything I believed in and worked for, over decades, is in the shitter. Until change comes to the WH, I can’t stay quiet. I dedicated myself to the fine principles of the Constitution. That asshole and his compliant lackeys in Congress are destroying it. I will not be silent.
The "How much is enough?" question will always be specific to us as individuals. As a former Acupuncturist, burnout was a common phenomenon in the helping professions, because when your occupation puts you in daily, intimate contact with sometimes overwhelming human suffering--and assuming you're not a narcissistic or sociopathic asshole--you want to do more, to help more. But then run the risk of giving too much time and other resources, to the point where our own health (and sanity) begin to fray. Which in turn degrades our effectiveness.
"The archetype of the wounded healer" was introduced to me by mentors as the dynamic that needs to be explored and to some degree understood by all of us who enter the healing profession. As a way of creating some sort of sustainable answer to that essential question.
That's a really good point. I sometimes worry that the executive directors of these grass roots organizations are so motivated to help that they risk their own health and well being. They seem to be "on" 24/7.
The One True Religion--Buddhism, of course--teaches that if personal compassion outweighs love, gratitude and equanimity (the four essential, or 'spiritually grownup' emotions), then we become unbalanced.
When we become unbalanced, we put the well-being of not only ourselves, but also the people and causes we care about, at risk.
In both Transpersonal Psychology and Alternative Medicine, it can be argued that when we strongly empathize with--i.e., feel--another's pain, and allow our perception of that pain to shape us, to the point that it becomes a serious burden, that we're in deep shit. Other emotional constructs then follow; like guilt that we can't relieve their suffering. And then neuroses over the guilt, and so on.
Learning to differentiate our own intrinsic suffering from that of others (almost always parents and siblings); and then choosing to (at least temporarily or conditionally) put down the non-self portion, is the essential step of solving the Wounded Healer archetype.
That must be a very difficult skill to acquire, to separate those feelings, to find that ideal. Thanks for giving us another tool to think about this.
Ain't nothing a good shrink can't handle. NYC is brimming with them.
Ellen,
I'm with you that silence is a terrible option. We have to fight despair and do what we can. The people in poverty you dealt with and the people we indirectly support through the organizations we give to are most at risk from Trump and his lackeys.
This isn't a question for the wealthy but for everyone. It's also a question without an answer. The point is to grapple with the question often and in a way that is honest with ourselves and others. That you do and do well. As my mother used to say, "A blessing on your head".
Thanks Sam!
The answer to how much has to be deeply personal and tied to what causes and why. I think the latter are more important, even. Removing harmful mold from a multigenerational home, as you described, is to me more important than a larger donation to an NGO with a public company style executive structure or an already well-financed foundation or university endowment. I don’t believe in straight-up effective altruism, because I want people like you to also support the cultural philanthropy that those people can’t quantify, but I would suggest that the Bronx Museum or the Brooklyn Museum would benefit more per dollar given than the Met.
All I mean to say is that there are so many ways to do tremendous good whether or not you meet some other person’s threshold of “enough.” If you’ve made one home healthy, the observation “why did you not do a hundred or a thousand?” Is not, to me, much of a critique.
Thanks for the comment Michael. The Met does not seem to be hitting as it continues to expand its footprint in multiple directions. So yeas I agree that supporting orgs. where you can make a difference is better/more satisfying. It's taken me a while to figure that out.
I'm in awe of the public nature of this conversation. When do we ever hear of rich people talking about the nitty gritty of what they give?? Well done! Great post. The question of "what is enough?" brings up the question of "what is definitely NOT enough?" for me - when thinking about billionaires who pay peanuts in tax.
There's some interesting figures on the degrees to which some legendary Oligarchs and their families give. Or do not.
On one side of the spectrum you have folks like the Gates, or MacKenzie Scott; who give away 33% of their income, or literally billions of their net worth, respectively. While on the other, are skinflints like the heirs of the Walmart fortune, who give next to nothing.
A lot of people ,the ones who study this sort of thing are now highly critical of the Philanthropy practiced by Gates and others. They see it as political and manipulative. And self-serving too.
This may be. Which supports the argument for restoring pre-Bush taxation levels so that the 99% must not be held hostage to the philanthropic whims of billionaires.
But we live in an era where extreme wealth--and the extremely wealthy--are fetishized as something akin to demigods. Especially from the Conservative side of US opinion, where they've simply read too much Ayn Rand, imo.
Thanks Ashley.
I replied to you on notes but you helped solidify my plan to write about taxes and what's coming in the proposed budget.
Thanks David. I'm looking forward to it. A lot of people will be interested to read it.
Might be an entirely different essay but I'm just learning about Trump's Gold card visa for Billionaires. What I'm understanding is that no billionaire would pay for this unless they were exempt from paying global taxes. Could that happen...idk?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswealthteam/2025/02/28/billionaires-dont-want-trumps-golden-visa/
I don’t know either.
I wonder if instead of looking at it from the giver, what if you were to look at it from the receiver's perspective? As a receiver, the act of someone giving anything to me or an organization I was working with was a huge gift. The amount was *almost* immaterial.
For example, if the amount allowed an athlete to fund the race wheelchair they needed to compete at the highest level, then it was enough. If the amount was able to fund a wholesale build out of a coaching registration, certification and training program that would benefit athletes and coaches alike, then it was enough. For that specific purpose.
My experience is more from the perspective of soliciting funds and having donors such as yourself and your family, who are invested in the longer term vision of an organization is worth so much more than just the dollars you are able to give. It's a knowing that if there is a need, there is an ability to tap into the expertise of donors such as yourself to assist in specific projects as needed. And just as you don't want to be giving too much to one organization, I know as a leader of one that relied on fundraising, it's no good to have all our eggs in one basket either. I'm sure the organizations and writers you support would say you are doing more than enough. Your wealth is your business and giving anything is very generous IMO.
Thanks Kim. I tend to get embarrassed when Im thanked by the leaders of the orgs. we support. To hear your perspective, then, is really helpful and encouraging!
Gee Baby Ain't I Good To You.
Fascinating read, David. With wealth inequality reaching historic highs (U.S. billionaires’ wealth surged by over 50% in the past decade), how has this shift affected the culture of philanthropy, if at all, in your view?
I think about what government can do and what philanthropy can do. I think there's about $500 billion in giving in the U.S. annually. But it's hard to know how much of that goes to help people in need. We do know, however, that cuts in state and Federal benefits that are currently being proposed such as to Medicaid will put a tremendous burden on people in need and could overwhelm much if not all the poverty fighting giving done privately.
Happy belated birthday!
Love this post David along with the thoughtful and reflective comments. I lead a small nonprofit org that serves people globally with a rare incurable cancer. I wish more individuals would consider the wide range of orgs that do great work who struggle with funding Bhat said, agree it’s a personal decision and the question of enough is personal. I’ve devoted the last 20+ years in some way to this community, 14 as the paid leader. Certainly the salary - with no benefits- is lower than in a corporate job - and I sometimes feel like I’m stealing from the org taking my salary. At the same time, I am passionate about supporting other causes & efforts outside of my space & often wonder why others in my circle who have way more financial means than I do never consider giving in any philanthropic way either in money or time or resources. Boggles my mind.
Susan,
The way you contribute your time is priceless. I think giving is something that is addictive in a good way and that people who don't do out are missing out on one of life's greatest experiences.
I can't help to think that underlying this may be more of a self-affirmation problem ...measuring one's achievement in terms of disposable wealth...private schools, academic institutions are notorious for capitalizing on this human weakness. Might be more important to give less and more consistently to those things that move you.
Thanks Ellen for the comment. In our earlier days of giving we did focus on the bigger institutions. But we've realized that it;'s far more satisfying to give to smaller ones. And consistency is really important.
There are definite Halachas of how much a Jew is supposed to give, and how much he is not allowed to give (over a certain amount). The specifics are complicated in terms of: is it yours yet, or is it just a growth on the graph (like, did you sell the stock, is it a dividend?etc). Everyone, including poor people, are supposed to give 10% of their income away (as you wrote, who receives this is another question). Many people who have a somewhat higher income give 20%. From my understanding, one is not supposed to give more than 20% to tzedaka, but one would need to ask a halachic authority if one is interested, for an individual assessment. In any case, you are a generous person, and it sounds like you have educated your children to be generous. An excellent character trait.
Thanks Liba. That's interesting about the limit of 20%. I suppose it's to make sure that you're not neglecting your own family. Being a Mrs. Jellyby if you're familiar with Dickens'; Bleak House. Maimonides' ranking of charitable acts is also fascinating.
I give very little monetarily— almost nothing right now — because I don’t have enough for even a modest retirement and I’m prioritizing giving a very high percentage of my income to a family member in need — I have one entire side gig that I work in order to help that family member. However, I have always considered that the career I chose was in itself a gift. I worked quite long hours for low pay in community journalism, which served and greatly improved my community. Now that nobody is doing that work locally (because a hedge fund destroyed local journalism and threw us into a news desert) the negative effect on local governance is profound. I always hope that the day will come when I’ll have more resources available to share, but it’s unlikely to happen. When my children were small and I was a SAHM, I did quite a lot of volunteer work. I always thought I’d return to that once I retired, but it seems retirement isn’t going to happen for me. I do give my time to a couple of organizations. Probably the best I can hope for is not to require charity.
Michelle,
Giving to your family member in need is absolutely giving. I'd say it would be a priority before giving to any 501c3's.
Also, I think your Substack focusing on inequality is itself a very valuable form of giving.
In my post, I focused on money because that was the topic that I was having the most agita about after my session with Elle.
We should collaborate! robertsdavidn@gmail.com
If a life is measured at the end by not how much one has accumulated but rather by how much one has given away, the question of how much is enough becomes irrelevant. I have recommended to several families with accumulated wealth that they establish a family foundation which continues to give to preferred charities in perpetuity, an endowed fund. The kids sat on the Board of the Foundation to be sure the money was going to those places at the top of the list. Because the fund was invested wisely, it continued to grow over time and produce more income, a percentage of which was given away every taxable year. Grants and contributions were open to applicants within prescribed field such as education, the environment, health care and research, and perhaps in your case, poverty and hunger, some of the pressing social issues in local communities.
Thanks Gary. Your suggestions were the "but for's" in creating these valuable giving entities.
Great article. I know today it’s common for Jews to continue the practice of giving 10% to charity. Also the US is considered the most charitable country in the world according to Charities Aid Foundation.
Happy birthday! 🎉🎊🎁🎈
Thanks Cariisa. America is the most philanthropic country. But that is paired with having the least generous social safety net among our peers. So when we add it all together, are we generous or have we outsourced some basic services and standards of living? It's something that's been increasingly on my mind, especially with the possibility of cuts to medicaid.
That is exactly what gives me agita. Not supporting the least among us but counting on private philanthropy to do so seems inhumane to me. Especially as the country has gotten so much bigger and more diverse and familes more geographically dispersed. It’s not that we can’t, as a country, afford to provide a minimum standard of living, it’s that ‘we’ choose not to do so. And as I read your posts, it reminds me that it’s time to do our household review of our giving for 2025. The need is great and will only grow under the current government. One thing I struggle with (we’re comfortable but much of our income now that we’re over 70 is Social Security ) is how to do that 30 year spreadsheet and be sure we can tend to our needs over that period. Time for some ‘what ifs’. Always appreciate your posts and wisdom.
Thanks Amy for the comment. Unfortunately, as you wrote, the need seems set to grow.
All I know is that there very few (if any) people in this world that I know who are as generous and thoughtful as you and Debbie. To me and my definition of what makes a good (rich) person, what matters most is how you carry yourself and treat others, and how connected with your heart you are. Quality, not quantity…
Thanks Cici!