What do you do when you make money? American tycoons are keen on charity.
On the 20th, Business Week published the list of the 50 most generous philanthropists in the United States in 2003. In this super-luxury lineup, there are many familiar names: Bill Gates, chairman of Microsoft, Gordon Moore, one of the founders of Intel, and ted turner, founder of CNN. Looking through the list carefully, it is not difficult to draw the conclusion that many American super-rich people are keen on charity nowadays.
According to Businessweek, the Gates family's wealth is $46 billion. From 1999 to 2003, they donated and pledged a total of $23 billion, accounting for half of their family property. As a result, the Gates and his wife ranked first among the 50 most generous philanthropists. During the same period, Gordon Moore, one of the founders of Intel Corporation, and his wife Betty have donated and pledged $7 billion to charity, ranking second. Ranked third is investor george soros, whose charitable donation is $2.4 billion.
While publishing the list, Businessweek also made an in-depth analysis of these philanthropists' good deeds and found out some similarities between them.
* * * One of the similarities: earn less, but donate more. In the past two years, although the world economic growth continued to be sluggish and the profits of business owners fell to the lowest point, these famous philanthropists on the list still gave generously to help the poor. The people they help are not limited to the United States, and even people in many underdeveloped countries have benefited from it. For example, Bill Gates donated more than 2 billion dollars to help the medical and health undertakings in developing countries. While giving generously, philanthropists cherish the wealth they have created, and they demand that their donations be used openly and effectively. Some philanthropists also introduce the seriousness of managing corporate finance into the management and use of donations, and strive to "use all the money on the cutting edge".
* * * Similarity 2: More and more philanthropists make a fortune by new technology. After comparing the current philanthropists with the past philanthropists, Businessweek concluded that philanthropists who made their fortune by new technology have occupied an important position in American philanthropy. It is not difficult to see from the ranking table that both Gates and Moore come from the emerging computer industry. In addition to them, michael dell, president of Dell, Jeffrey Xiaolin, the first president of EBAY, and others also come from emerging industries such as computers and networks.
* * * Similarity 3: More and more philanthropists hope to donate their property in their lifetime. In the past, many traditional philanthropists put forward in their wills that a part of their property will be set as a charitable fund after a hundred years to benefit future generations. But today's philanthropists are more willing to donate their wealth in their lifetime, and some philanthropists don't even plan to leave any money after death. Among philanthropists who hold this view, young people who make their fortune by new technologies are the main force, such as Gates. These young philanthropists often set up their own charitable funds in their thirties and forties. They want to see with their own eyes that the wealth created by their talents is used to help those in need. Businessweek thinks there are four main reasons why they do this.
First of all, the younger generation of philanthropists believe that the wealth they create should be controlled by themselves and there is no need to leave it to others. They feel that doing so can make more effective use of the money they donated. Secondly, young philanthropists believe that there are many people in need in the world now. Instead of donating money a hundred years later, it is better to act now to help those people. Besides, "there are today's philanthropists and tomorrow's philanthropists, so there is no need to leave today's wealth to tomorrow." Third, many young philanthropists have a greater sense of social responsibility than their predecessors. They are deeply aware of the harm that the gap between the rich and the poor brings to the world, so they decide to start donating money when their personal wealth has accumulated to a certain extent to repay the society. Fourthly, by learning from the experience of the rich in the past, many young rich people clearly realize that if the pursuit of wealth accumulation reaches an unsatisfied level, it is likely to have unimaginable consequences, which will not only be bad for their careers, but also have no benefits for their families. So many people hope to curb the endless pursuit of wealth through donations.
After analyzing the above reasons, Businessweek concluded that with the increase of young philanthropists, "being a living philanthropist" will increasingly become the concept advocated by American philanthropists today.
* * * Similarity 4: Philanthropists don't want to leave too much legacy for future generations. According to a survey by Businessweek, American philanthropists only want to leave a small part of all their property to future generations. Most philanthropists believe that hard work and entrepreneurial experience are everyone's precious wealth and can bring happiness to people. If you leave too much legacy to your children and grandchildren, it will certainly encourage their enterprising thoughts and do no good to your children and grandchildren. Moreover, most Americans advocate creating wealth through personal efforts, and inheriting inheritance is considered as something for nothing, and some even think it is tantamount to "robbery." James Stals, the founder of American Century Company, ranked fifth in the list of 50 philanthropists, said, "We don't want to leave all our property to our children, which will ruin them. If we leave great wealth to children, so that they don't even have a reason to get up early, then we will harm them. " The Stals are going to donate most of their property to a medical center they set up in Kansas. Starls joked that he hoped that after their death, his children would proudly say, "This is my parents' legacy. "
In addition, a survey by Columbia University in the United States shows that many young people are profligate after inheriting their parents' inheritance, and they often become "black sheep", which is more prone to anxiety, decadence and other bad mental states than children from middle-class families or even low-income families. This has also prompted philanthropists to be more willing to donate their wealth in their lifetime, "leaving $654.38+0 billion for future generations instead of $654.38+0 billion, so that they can live comfortably but not luxuriously".
In addition, many young philanthropists, while leaving a small legacy to future generations, also taught their children to be frugal when they were young and encouraged them to actively participate in charity. For example, the four children of michael dell, president of Dell, are now small philanthropists. They live frugally and are keen on public welfare. Ann Lu Rui ranked 43rd among 50 philanthropists. Her six children live as simple a life as ordinary children. They even buy furniture from discount stores. Lu Rui set up a charity fund in the name of each of them, asking them to donate money to help others. Lu Rui said: "Children want to show people that they are going their own way in this world, not relying on their parents."
* * * Same point 5: The number of philanthropists who do not want to be named has increased. Businessweek found in the survey that there are still a group of anonymous philanthropists in the United States who often leave no "trace" after donating. These people don't want to show their faces or let the public know what they do. They think that since God has given them great wealth, they should return it. Businessweek believes that such philanthropists are on the increase in the United States.
Why are American millionaires keen on charity?
In the history of human civilization, it is not uncommon for rich Americans to do good deeds. 100 years ago, the money donated by the chaebol Rockefeller and Carnegie was equivalent to the current1400 million US dollars. Carnegie said, "It is a shame to die of great wealth." Among the wealthy Americans, enthusiastic charity has become a tradition.
Why don't the rich Americans pass on their wealth to their children?
First, the United States advocates personal struggle to conquer the world, unlike some other countries that respect hereditary titles and wealth. Many American entrepreneurs who have succeeded through hard work do not believe that wealth can be passed down from generation to generation. They know that because rich children grew up in a pile of money, they don't worry about eating and drinking all their lives, and they are carefree. It is easy to form the bad habit of spending money like water and living comfortably. Not only will money not bring happiness to children, but it may hurt them.
For example, Buffett and Gates both believe in the educational principle of "no matter how rich children are". They would rather donate money to the society than give more money to their children to squander. Gates once said: "When you have 1 100 million dollars, you will understand that money is just a symbol and it is meaningless." Gates is so generous to society, but "stingy" to his daughter. Buffett also abandoned the concept of hereditary wealth. He said: "I never believed in the hereditary wealth of the dynasty." When answering a reporter's question about why he didn't leave his assets to his children, Buffett said that he believed that wealth came from society and should eventually be given back to society. He said that he left enough living expenses for his children.
Secondly, the American tax system also encourages charitable donations. At present, the United States collects 50% inheritance tax. The more inheritance, the higher the tax rate, but the donated assets are exempt from inheritance tax. Many descendants of the rich simply donate their property, and in the future they can enjoy the personal tax relief of the donated part 10%. Some rich people also think that instead of paying taxes on most of the inheritance, it is better to donate part of it first to gain a good reputation. In fact, the part inherited by future generations is not much less than the full tax payment (although 20 10 became a year with zero inheritance tax in American history, that is, because the US Congress failed to reach an amendment to the tax reduction policy in time at the end of 2009, many Americans did not have to pay inheritance tax, but 2065438+. It can be said that the charitable tax relief system is a catalyst for the development of American philanthropy. According to statistics, in the past 40 years, the average annual charitable donation of Americans accounted for 1.8% of the US GDP.