In researching historical and religious views on charitable giving, I came across Maimonides’ hierarchy. He believed that there are 8 degrees of charity. These deal primarily with providing for the poor. Here are his 8 levels, from the highest to lowest. Do you agree with this assessment? How high are you on the list?

1. Investing in a poor person in a manner that they can become self-sufficient.
2. Giving to the poor without knowledge of the recipient and without allowing the recipient to know your identity.
3. Giving to the poor with knowledge of the recipient but without allowing the recipient to know your identity (anonymous giving).
4. Giving to the poor without knowledge of the recipient but allowing the recipient to know your identity.
5. Giving to the poor without or before being asked.
6. Giving to the poor after being asked.
7. Giving to the poor happily but inadequately.
8. Giving to the poor unwillingly.

What do you think?

Here are some articles from around the web that I’ve enjoyed recently. Maybe you will, as well.

Hedge Against Your Bills By Owning the Company. When your bills go up, it’s possible that the company’s profits go up as well. As an investor, you can benefit from the company’s success. So while your bills go up, so do your income from gains and dividends.

The Sucker Factor. Often it’s hard to say no to people’s requests when your friends need help or when charities need charity. In this post, Trent has some advice for standing your ground and not buckling to pity and other emotions.

Make Multiple Debt Payments Every Month. This is a fascinating strategy to help people get out of debt. The idea of micropayments is basically a similar concept to the ECRD Factor. Small, repetitive deposits or debt payments can have a long-term positive effect (as long as doing so doesn’t mean that one ignores the larger transactions).

This Recession Obsession. Single Ma has observed that companies are taking advantage of the idea that consumers are apparently scared and will jump at any perceived deal. This is obviously the case with Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep’s $2.99 per gallon of gasoline guarantee. Single Ma’s doing 15 specific things to help keep her wits about her during the recession.

A recent article on CNN Money described the woes of independent gas station owners. The increasing cost of a gallon of gasoline results in less profit thanks to the processing fees credit card companies charge the merchants. I can appreciate that doing business in this type of environment is tough.

With gas prices soaring to a national average of $3.76 Wednesday, according to motorist group AAA, those credit card fees add up to an average of 7.5 cents per gallon – taking away nearly 83% of gas stations’ fuel profits.

Most gas stations earn their bigger profits on items purchased in the attached convenience store and mechanic services. Gasoline is a loss leader. Everyone needs it, and many gas stations are willing to take even a slight loss on gas as long as they continue to make profits elsewhere.

The credit card companies don’t accept the blame. For example, Visa says the processing fee they charge their gas stations is set by the large oil companies.

The Electronic Payment Coalition (EPC), a group representing credit card networks and financial services organizations, said it’s impractical for card companies to negotiate with every single gas retailer. So, it said, gas station owners should put pressure on their parent oil companies to negotiate a better fee.

To compete, some gas stations are charging customers who use a credit card more than a customers who use cash. Apparently, they’ve found a way to avoid breaking the credit card companies’ rules by calling this a “cash discount” rather than a “credit premium.”

I don’t know what the real difference is, and the only effect it’s had on me is switching to another gas station. The main problem is when gas stations advertise their cash price without disclosing (until the nozzle is in your car) that you will be paying more if you use a credit card.

To help solve some of these problems, both for the consumer and the independent gas station owner, Congress is suggesting fixing the maximum rate that credit card companies can charge merchants to accept their cards through a bipartisan bill in the House, called the Credit Card Fair Fee Act. Congress will set up a committee who will define what rates the credit card companies can charge merchants.

Will this solve the problem or is it unnecessary meddling in a free(ish) market economy?

Lately I’ve noticed commercials for a special car buying incentive offered by Chrysler: a gas credit card that guarantees that you will pay no more than $2.99 for a gallon of gas for three years. The offer, good between now and June 2 on most Chrysler, Jeep and Dodge vehicles preys on our fear and anticipation of higher gas costs this coming summer.

But the numbers don’t work out all that well. First, in order to qualify for the $2.99 gas card, which is good for regular unleaded gasoline, diesel, or E85, you must relinquish your option to take advantage of any other purchasing incentive. Assuming the average gas price over the next three years is $3.99, and it could be lower once the political environment changes, one might save a couple hundred dollars a year. But how is this worthwhile if you have to give up a $2,000 (or more) cash back deal to qualify? A quick search of Chrysler incentives shows that dealers are offering up to $3,000 cash back. In other locations offering you can find incentives offering $5,000 cash back.

Additionally, according to the rules of this “Let’s Refuel America” incentive, your gas savings would be limited to 12,000 miles a year. After that limit, you would have to pay full price.

It makes no sense to give up a $5,000 discount in return for the possibility of saving a few hundred dollars a year. Keep in mind that three years from now, the price of gas may be much less than $2.99. You would have given up a significant incentive for very little benefit.

The perceived savings on the cost of gas is higher than the numbers reveal. Chrysler is simply seizing the opportunity to present a deal that looks nice to customers concerned about rising gas costs, but this deal is much better for the dealer than for the buyer.

If you’re concerned about gas savings and you’re in the market for a new car, opting for a vehicle with just a little more fuel efficiency compared to the Chrysler cars and trucks will be a better option for saving money on gas. Just a 3 mpg improvement will save $3,000 in the first three years, and then would continue saving money long beyond the expiration of the terms of this deal.

Photo credit: joebeone

If you have a loan serviced by Sallie Mae, there is a good chance that your FICO credit score dropped significantly recently. Consumers have identified an error in Sallie Mae’s reporting. Accounts in good standing have been flagged and notated with the wording, “Arrangements made with credit grantor to make partial payments.” Sallie Mae is reporting the your loan balance is fully due immediately and that your payments are behind more than 60 days.

This reporting error has caused FICO scores to drop about 150 points. This can be a pricey error for anyone planning to close on a mortgage. As of now, the error is isolated with Equifax, but Experian and Transunion may be affected as well.

If you have a loan with Sallie Mae, particularly if you opted for a “graduated payment plan” in which your total payments increase over time, I suggest taking advantage of your free annual credit report from Equifax right away and disputing any incorrect record.

Also contact Sallie Mae at 888-272-5543 if you believe they are reporting your loan information incorrectly.

May 14, 2008 Update. This story has been picked up by BusinessWeek and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The problem at Sallie Mae affected an estimated one million customers. BankRate provides this information:

Sallie Mae is working with Equifax to correct borrowers’ credit reports. Credit scores should return to their standings before the drop within “the next day or so,” and any erroneous delinquencies resulting from the misinformation should be removed from the borrowers’ Equifax credit reports… All credit reporting agencies have been notified of the issue and consumers do not need to pull their credit reports if they have not already done so, nor do they need to dispute the error with the credit bureaus… They should call Sallie Mae directly.

MyFICO forum thread via a reader

You’ve seen it before. Perhaps you’re watching the Academy Awards and expecting the winner of Best Supporting Access to give a quick acceptance speech thanking her cast, director, crew, and family, but perhaps she takes more time to pontificate about human rights, war, or politics. Most people I know groan when yet another entertainment superstar shares his opinion about issues unrelated to acting, singing or dancing. But skills in entertainment may not always preclude intelligence or sincerity.

Tom Hanks knew this when he published his stump video for Barack Obama on Youtube. He says sarcastically, “As an official celebrity, I know my endorsement has just made your mind up for you.” (Hanks managed to slip into his endorsement a mention of George Washington’s transference of power to John Adams, an event recently depicted in the John Adams miniseries he recently produced for HBO, but perhaps that is beside the point.)

I like Tom Hanks’ approach. By posting a Youtube video, he is not forcing anyone to listen to his message; those who are interested can seek it out. Additionally, I find Tom Hanks to appear to be an intelligent figure in entertainment, always making smart and challenging choices in his own career. I would then extrapolate and assume that he is likely just as intelligent with other decisions as well. But his argument in favor of any presidential candidate is only as persuasive to me as I want it to be.

This is just a recent example, but there is no doubt that it is common for celebrities to use their voice and popularity to bring awareness to a human rights or political cause. Perhaps the type of popularity in which individuals have the ability to reach an audience of millions instills responsibility or desire to reach people in a way that not many others can. Anyone in their place who cares about an issue would regret not bringing awareness before they no longer have the ears of a wide audience if given the fleeting chance.

I believe that anyone with the ability to communicate to millions of people and touch so many lives has the responsibility to raise awareness to important issues. However, the most uncouth outbursts at an inappropriate time (think Michael Moore at the Oscars blasting President Bush) make the celebrity seem like a jerk for using their status to spread their message and take attention away from the issue and place it on the celebrity. Don’t forget that celebrities all along the political spectrum use their status for awareness, including Charlton Heston with his From My Cold, Dead Hands call as chairman of the National Rifle Association.

Should celebrities just shut up and entertain us, or does great responsibility follow great popularity? Is it right for some celebrities but not others, or is it the timing or situation that makes the message acceptable to hear? Or do you believe only the celebrities who agree with you should have the opportunity to speak out for issues that they find important?

Photo credits: Alan Light and Legendary Classic

I’ve updated the list of ING Direct referral codes with 10 new links for new customers who wish to earn a free $25 when opening their account. If you have referral links to add to this list, let me know by sending me an email. Once I run out of my own, I will keep the page updated with referrals provided by readers.

After you open your account, you will be given the opportunity to refer others, earning $10 for each new customer you provide. To get started open an ING Direct account using one of these bonus links.

Remember, however, that in order to receive the $25 bonus, you must open your account with an initial deposit of at least $250. If you do not have $250 to deposit initially, please use this link instead.

Doodle Day is more than just a day, it is the set of all days between May 8 and May 18 inclusive. The purpose of naming this period of time is to draw attention to neurofibromatosis (NF), a common neural disorder. May is NF Awareness month, and to participate in Doodle Day, some celebrities are offering drawings and photographs for auction on eBay. All the proceeds go towards NF, Inc. for research for a cure and education about this disorder.

You can browse some of the celebrity offerings here, and I have to say I’m not familiar with all of the artists. If you’re interested in art by Candice Bergen, Jim Davis, Jeff Bridges, or Mickey Dolenz, you can purchase their doodles and support this particular charity. As of last night, the works of art going for the highest prices were created by Seth Green, Neil Gaiman, Gillian Anderson, and Ellen DeGeneres.

Have you ever participated in a charity auction?