True to a point. Most of the wealthy people I have known, though, preferred to let other people get their hands dirty. One man I knew as a security guard supported a homeless shelter religiously, acted as a benefactor to it, but refused, outright, to give them money or help face-to-face.
The reason I know this is because we were told as guards to be stern and completely uncharitable to the homeless. It seemed harsh to me, but then I saw what happened to guards who did slip and buddy up to them. They weren't treated with more respect. On their shifts the homeless people would come in to get somethign from them, and then take a crap in the stairwells as they left.
Eventually, people who were openly "sympathetic" were let go. I found it in a short time to be impossible to both help them, and be friends with them. This isn't true for all the poor, I know that.
Charity sets up an odd dynamic, though. To those who really don't want charity, they tend to resent it. They appreciate it, but it doesn't make them feel better about themselves. Abstractly, that makes them not feel so great about the person they have to face who has helped them. People who would rather HAVE charity see their benefactors as a meal ticket, and tend to objectify them.
For that reason, I think charity almost has to be institutional, with a layer of obfuscation between the giver and those that benefit.
