Talk:Charitable gift annuity
Review requested
Hello, development is finished. Ready for main space? - Quebec 09:37, 30 December 2025 (EST)
- Sorry, but I am having difficulty to understand the introduction. I propose a change as:
A charitable gift annuity is a
complexcharitable giving instrument that involves transfer of capital to a registered charity, which offers a stream of regular payments in exchangewhile still receiving income from the charitable capital. The charity will issue a tax credit receipt for a portion of the donation. On the other hand, the regular income provided to the investor will be less than what would be obtained with an annuity purchased directly from a life insurance company.- The section "Marketing and alternatives" uses a single experimental study. An experimental study is not a credible source of information. I'm also having difficulty understanding the intent of this section because it's written like an academic paper. Can you please simplify the wording to state what, exactly, should be done here?
- Please see the Bogleheads wiki page Charitable gift annuity for a comparison of the approach and terminology used. LadyGeek 06:31, 31 December 2025 (EST)
- Hi LadyGeek, thanks for the review. In response, I've borrowed a few applicable sentences from the Bogleheads wiki page (in the lead section), but most of that page is not applicable to Canada where tax rules are different, etc. I have kept the word 'complex' in a different sentence of the lead section: CGAs are more complex (and confusing) than SPIAs or simple cash donations and readers should know that early on in the article. I've limited the use of the James (2008) paper in the "Marketing and alternatives" section to a single sentence. Please have a second look.
- The Bogleheads wiki writes "Like all irrevocable decisions, you should be sure that you have no need for any lump sum you are considering donating". But that is not how CGAs are marketed, especially when charities make comparisons with GICs or stress the regular income the donor will get. If the donor actually needs that income from an annuity, (s)he should get a SPIA directly from an insurance company (with the govt regulation and the Assuris guarantee). If the donor does not need the income and wants the maximum impact from the charitable gift, why not simply give cash and expect nothing in return (apart from the tax receipt)? CGAs seem live in a grey area in between.
- Regards, - Quebec 11:18, 31 December 2025 (EST)
- The introduction and "Marketing and alternatives" section are clear and easy (for me) to understand. Remember that I'm in the US and can not authoritatively confirm the accuracy of the content.
- There is one remaining point. In "Separate decisions", what does the 4:1 ratio refer to? I don't see anything in the page that explains this ratio. LadyGeek 14:57, 31 December 2025 (EST)
- Hi again, I've re-written the "Marketing and alternatives" section, hopefully one last time. - Quebec 10:04, 1 January 2026 (EST)
Hi Quebec, the "Separate decisions" section is well written and clear. The graphic is very helpful. I think the article is read for the main space.
After the page is moved to the main space, I think that the "Separate decisions" section should be referenced from Retirement income strategies and styles (Goals) and vice-versa with Template:See also and some added description. LadyGeek 10:43, 1 January 2026 (EST)
Now in the main space, after a small hiccup Peculiar Investor 12:30, 1 January 2026 (EST)
Use investor/donor or retiree consistently throughout the article?
The lead-in section mentions the investor/donor and then the term retiree is used for most of the article. Are they one and the same person and should investor/donor or just donor be used throughout the article? Peculiar Investor 12:24, 1 January 2026 (EST)
- Done. I've changed the sidebar to "Template:Charitable giving" (newly created) which fits better IMO. - Quebec 15:00, 1 January 2026 (EST)