I think financial advice columns are unethical. Can you prove me wrong?

I find the ethics of many financial columns a difficult traverse. Many columns advise on strategies to minimise tax (e.g. setting up family trusts, favourable dispensation of wealth to children, reducing financial obligations that come with inheritance, etc) which countermands our altruistic collegiate and communal obligations to fund public services.

Shortfalls for health and education services not funded by the wealthy by legal – yet unfair – avoidance of taxation are more than likely to be borne by the less fortunate who have no recourse to strategic business and investment advice. I would like your take on this. It’s been egging at me for some time, as a child-free doctor.

Tax minimisation by the ultra-wealthy is often unpalatable, but not everyone asking for advice falls into that bracket.Credit: Simon Letch

This is a complex issue I can’t do justice to in a short article. So, my goal isn’t to give you an answer, but to challenge your thinking and deepen your appreciation of some of the nuances.

First, let’s define the scope of your question. People writing to financial columns for advice are not billionaires or even mega-millionaires looking to save millions in taxes.

They are also not people who are trying to be dodgy or illegal. If anything, people who write in to financial columns are asking for advice because they actively want to understand their legitimate options.

My estimation is that we’re mostly talking about people who, at the top end, have maybe $1 million to $3 million in assets (often including their home). Now, that is a great accomplishment which gives you the opportunity to live a quality of life only a tiny fraction of the global population gets.

We tend to view ‘wealthy’ people as one homogenous group that is always the other. This makes it easy to dehumanise them and cast judgement.

However, I’ve worked with enough people to know that reality is different, and with the tiny paragraph of information someone writes in with, it’s impossible to know their full situation.

Did this person live the majority of their life in financial scarcity, and now they’ve finally come into an inheritance that allows them a level of security they’ve never experienced?

Has this person taken on family responsibilities that means they’re still stretching their resources – supporting elderly or disabled family members? Are they the first person in their family history to have access to resources that enable them to provide an above-average lifestyle for their family?

What is the specific point at which we tell someone – now you have too much, you should be more altruistic and want to give it to society, as opposed to investing it into your own family?

Further, how does one measure the specific point at which investing into one’s family is less beneficial to society, than investing into social projects directly? Even if that specific point could be measured – should it be imposed?

Should we have a blanket rule that parents shouldn’t pay for private schools, private tuition, extracurriculars, and so on? If the additional resources invested into a child results in them positively contributing to society as an adult (for instance, becoming a doctor such as yourself), or even just becoming happy, healthy adults who are good citizens – is that a net positive for society?

We tend to have an oversimplified view of “wealthy” people. We tend to view wealthy people as one homogenous group, that is always the other (i.e. it’s never ourselves). This makes it easy to dehumanise them and cast judgement across a broad category – they’re selfish and greedy, they already have enough, they’re just trying to cut corners for themselves.

We also tend to have paternalistic views of what people should do with their money. This exists on both sides: telling people with more that they should give isn’t any more effective than telling people with less that they should save.

On the surface, this approach sounds like we’re trying to lead people to better behaviours, but if you think about it – isn’t it just a nice way to validate our own moral superiority whilst bypassing the real work that would lead to effective behaviour change? (I say this not from a pedestal, but having made this mistake myself).

The real work is – how do you get someone to want to change? How do you move someone (psychologically and emotionally) past financial scarcity, so they feel safe being generous? How do you help someone meet the deeper emotional needs they’re trying to have met through wealth – status, power, safety, enjoyment – so that giving doesn’t feel like it’s costing them something?

How do you instil in someone both the drive for personal success required to build wealth, and also the sense of social responsibility required to want to use it for the greater good?

As is true in many professions (including your own), you can’t force people to the finish line – you have to meet them where they are, and help them take the step they’re ready to take … which isn’t always the one you most want them to take.

Paridhi Jain is founder of SkilledSmart, which helps adults learn to manage, save and invest money through financial education courses and classes.

• Advice given in this article is general in nature and not intended to influence readers’ decisions about investing or financial products. They should always seek their own professional advice that takes into account their own personal circumstances before making any financial decisions.

Expert tips on how to save, invest and make the most of your money delivered to your inbox every Sunday. Sign up for our Real Money newsletter.