Giving at death is more effective than giving during life

Just noting that there's a huge literature on this exact question, eg

• Phil Trammell, "Philanthropy timing and the hinge of history," Feb 2020
• Will MacAskill,"When should an effective altruist donate?," Sept 2019
• Holden Karnofsky, "Good Ventures and Giving Now vs. Later," Dec 2016
• Julia Wise, "Giving now vs. later: a summary," Jul 2013

1. You don’t seem to account for inflation. $10 buys a bed net now. $10 will buy a lot less in 60 years.
2. Helping people accrues its own compound interest: saving someone from death, disability or grief now makes them happier, healthier, more productive members of society, better able to contribute and lift up those around them. Better to have these benefits sooner rather than later.
3. By your same logic, why stop at death? Put it in some trust fund to compound and be distributed in 100, 1000, 1 Billion years

Could you please share what assumptions are in the simulation? It's hard to learn from this or give feedback otherwise.

Your key rebuttal to the pro-giving-sooner arguments appears to be the finding that a "give at death" policy would lead to higher annual donations in a population of effective altruists, even in year 1. I can see others are questioning whether this claim is actually true, but I think this is missing the point. I think even if this claim is true, it is not relevant.

The question that each individual donor needs to answer is: What is the marginal impact of donating money now vs investing it and then donating it at some later time? (for each possible later time they could donate, which could even be after their death) I don't think the finding of your simulation actually has any bearing on this question.

This is because your finding is clearly highly dependent on mortality statistics. For example, if the variance in life-expectancy were lower so that no one died in the next 5 years, then the finding that donations are higher even in year 1 would no longer hold. On the other hand, the question of when a given donation will have the highest marginal impact has nothing to do with mortality statistics among effective altruists. So the two questions shouldn't have anything to do with each other.

If you are finding that one policy is leading to more wealth being moved than another (even after accounting for gains from interest), then I think you are also advocating a change in how much people should give, not just a change in when what they give should be given.

People can always give annually and donate a significant chunk of their wealth at death.

Afaict the model doesn't apply well to effective altruists as a sub-population. 

Most EAs are young, and unless the movement suddenly becomes popular among older people, few are likely to die in the next 40 years^[1]. Even if you fully buy this type of argument, and you believe donation opportunities are roughly uniformly distributed over time, the members of the community should probably do some 'donation smoothing' while alive.

1. ^{^}

   (If there’s an existential catastrophe, donating at death won’t matter anyway.)

After some time & querying Gemini 3 I adjusted my thinking on this a bit, I wonder if others may benefit from this info.
Due to personal circumstances & certain tax implications I think a good strategy for me is to max out a traditional IRA with 100% equities every year & keep any donations I would make in year in a 100% equities standard investment account so I can batch together donations in certain years & get a better tax deduction.

100% Equities

In standard personal finance, you lower risk as you age to protect your retirement security. In "Investing to Give," the philosophy is different.

Because large charities and global problems are less vulnerable to market volatility than a single individual, many EAs advocate for a risk-neutral or high-equity portfolio.

* The Logic: If the market crashes 20%, a large charity (like the Against Malaria Foundation) will not "go bust" the way an individual retiree might. They can wait for the market to recover.

* The Portfolio: This usually points toward 100% broad-market equities (like a Total World Stock Market Index Fund). You accept higher volatility for higher expected long-term returns, maximizing the final donation amount.
 

Traditional IRA

For "Giving Later," Traditional IRAs/401(k)s are often superior to Roths if you plan to donate the account itself upon death or use it for distributions in old age.

* Qualified Charitable Distributions (QCDs): Once you reach age 70½, you can transfer up to $105,000+ (indexed for inflation) per year directly from a Traditional IRA to a charity. This counts toward your Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) but does not count as taxable income. This is usually more tax-efficient than withdrawing the money (taking the income hit) and then donating it.

* Beneficiary Designation (The "Death Tax" Hack): If you die with unspent assets, leaving a Traditional IRA to heirs is inefficient (they pay income tax on it). If you leave the Traditional IRA to a charity as the beneficiary, the charity receives 100% of the money tax-free. Leave your Roth assets (which are tax-free) to your human heirs.

I also happen to have specific health conditions with higher risk of disability. If I invest money in a traditional IRA it has extra optionality. If I am relatively healthy & don’t need it, then I can donate it in older age. If I suffer a bad health incident that prevents me from working more then I can use some of it for myself.

Standard Investment Account Batched Donations

Because I live in a US state with no state income tax to deduct, my "baseline" itemized deductions are likely very low (perhaps just mortgage interest, if I have any). This makes the "Standard Deduction hurdle" much harder to clear, meaning my smaller annual donations often yield zero tax benefit.

Here is how to solve that with “Batching".

Part 1: The "Batching" Strategy

The Goal: Stop giving small amounts every year where you get no tax credit. Instead, save up and give a massive amount in one single year to crush the Standard Deduction, then give nothing (on paper) for the next few years.

The Math (2025/2026 Projections):

* Single Standard Deduction: ~$15,000

* Married Standard Deduction: ~$30,000

Scenario: Let's assume you are Single and want to donate $5,000/year.

* The "Standard" Way: You donate $5k in 2025, 2026, 2027, & 2028.

   * Total Donated: $20,000

   * Total Tax Deduction: $0 (because $5k is less than the $15k standard deduction; you just take the standard deduction every year anyway).

* The "Bunching" Way: You save that money in an investment account for 4 years, then donate all $20,000+appreciation in Year 4.

   * Year 1-3: You take the Standard Deduction.

    Year 4: You donate $20,000+ through direct stock transfers. Combined with other deductions (e.g., sales tax, mortgage interest), you might reach $25,000+ in itemized deductions. For a single tax filer making $100,000 a year this would mean saving an extra $2000+ in taxes**.

Donation Deduction Limits

The amount you can deduct in a single year is subject to limitations based on your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI). 

• For gifts of appreciated long-term capital gain property (like stock) to a public charity (including Donor Advised Funds), the deduction is generally limited to 30% of your AGI. 

• Any amount exceeding this limit can usually be carried forward for up to five additional tax years.

There are tax reasons & annual donation multiplier reasons like employee donation matching or matching events or credit card incentives, that make donating some percent each year of life make more sense.

It seems obvious on the face of it that saving until you die will leave you the most to give to charity. But this discounts the benefits of having that money earlier for the recipient.