Marcuse wrote:Actually I can sum it up better with a question: How does one who has nothing, give?
While Butts expanded on this on the individual level, I'd like to look at your question from a systemic level, where it raises many questions.
In a way, the question is purely hypothetical, as even a man on his deathbed can decide to pull a smile for the people around him, even if it takes effort and maybe gives him pain, so I can't really think of anyone who wouldn't be in a position to give.
Starting to look at it as a systemic issue, how does altruism influence the allocation of power, intended as capability to change things, whether for yourself or others, does it hinder the chances we have to gain power to give? The systemic allocation of resources and power could determine the impact and frequency of altruistic acts by rewarding altruistic acts with increased resources and power,
Hypothetically in the mid to long term such a mechanism will increase the power among people of an altruistic tendency, but that's a problematic mechanism to even envision.
The closest thing to a systemic reward mechanism for altruism would be reputation. It is not by chance that the most flamboyant gestures of altruism (charity and so on) are made often by people in the public eye, VIPs, showbiz personalities, famous businessmen and, similarly, big corporations. The act has a major resonance, and reputation at that level is as good as money, many times you could say those gestures are almost directly monetized.
On the other end of the spectrum, the systemic view can also partially explain why people in big cities are usually ruder and more selfish to each other than small town folks: there is very little chance that your acts will be noted by people who are or going to be relevant in your life, so you don't need to build a reputation, so a big urban system of society tends to lessen the importance and the rewards of altruism.
So, why who has everything doesn't give
more ? Why one who gives has nothing? Is there a way, or is it desirable, to make altruism universally rewarding? Who benefits by the present situation? Is it in society's/people in need/powerful people interest to keep it as it is or to find ways to change it?
Can the resourceful, powerful person who can and does give get to be in that position by giving along the way? And doesn't giving when arrived to that level just cement the status quo, undermining systemic change?
PS
Butts, after reading your signature I am now gay and will marry you, with or without your consent. The only issue I have with it is that that statement would have turned it in a much less awesome movie