The gentleman's stride and body language suggest that his charity was a kind of afterthought. He's certainly not stopping to chat with the beggar. Quite possibly, he is only being charitable because it would look bad to simply walk past the beggar. Reminds me of a political debate on television I saw not long ago. Each candidate for Mayor of New York was asked if they routinely give money to panhandlers on the subway. The question really made them squirm, but they all answered "yes."
The other thing that I have read on another site about this card is that it is about both giving and receiving, having and not having. It's about the relationship between one party whose position is "above" that of another. It's also about how these relationships sometimes aren't so simple and they can change at any moment. In this card, the well-to-do gentleman may be materially wealthy, but is he in charge of this situation? Doesn't this situation dictate that he must (or should) give to the less fortunate?
