如今,每一位美國(guó)人都身陷囹圄,堪稱一生中最艱難的時(shí)刻。那么美國(guó)的600余位億萬富翁,以及那些坐擁數(shù)十億美元的慈善基金會(huì)都到哪里去了呢?他們本該是力挽狂瀾的主力軍,然而,比起攜手解決當(dāng)下的困境,他們似乎更關(guān)心自己的大金庫(kù)——在捐款博彩的背后,更多的是精打細(xì)算。是時(shí)候來聊聊他們了。
單看這些億萬富翁的捐款總額,很容易給人一種“慷慨大方”的錯(cuò)覺。但其實(shí)在慷慨與否這件事上,百分比更能說明問題。以比爾?蓋茨為例,他一共捐了3億美元救助金,或許對(duì)大多數(shù)人而言,這已經(jīng)是一個(gè)天文數(shù)字,但對(duì)蓋茨本人,這不過是九牛一毛而已。以他的身家,3億美元不過是其凈資產(chǎn)中的0.3%。以其每年的被動(dòng)投資收益進(jìn)行計(jì)算,即便他每隔兩周就捐出3億美元,到今年年底,也依然還有1000億美元。
事實(shí)上,美國(guó)上層囤積的財(cái)富已經(jīng)達(dá)到了令人發(fā)指的地步。目前,諸如蓋茨基金會(huì)、洛克菲勒基金會(huì),以及福特基金會(huì)此類的慈善機(jī)構(gòu)共計(jì)持有約1萬億美元捐款。但美國(guó)前0.1%的富豪家族資產(chǎn)已經(jīng)達(dá)到了12萬億美元,前者與后者相比,依舊相形見絀。自疫情爆發(fā)以來,美國(guó)的失業(yè)率及食品短缺率都越過紅線,沖破了歷史最高點(diǎn),然而富豪們的資產(chǎn)卻風(fēng)雨無阻地增加了4000億美元。更為糟糕的是,迄今為止,超級(jí)富豪的捐款金額幾乎沒有太大的變動(dòng)。
此外,富豪們的捐款動(dòng)機(jī)也并非表面上所說的那樣單純。捐款行為可以幫助富豪得到稅收減免優(yōu)惠,只要向私人基金會(huì)或者其他政府推薦的慈善機(jī)構(gòu)捐款,該捐款人就能被豁免70%左右的稅收。如果是一些實(shí)行高稅收政策的國(guó)家,這一優(yōu)惠力度還會(huì)更大。換言之,富豪捐款中的2/3,說到底還是來自納稅人的錢,但他們卻有權(quán)利去指定自己的受助對(duì)象。
眾所周知,比爾?蓋茨早前曾經(jīng)發(fā)起并簽署了廣受贊譽(yù)的“捐贈(zèng)誓約”,承諾會(huì)在有生之年或在自己的遺囑中捐出半數(shù)的財(cái)富。既然如此,為什么不能早一點(diǎn)實(shí)行,早一點(diǎn)為社會(huì)做出貢獻(xiàn)呢?
在疫情和經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)的雙重夾擊下,在這個(gè)水深火熱的時(shí)代,是時(shí)候讓那些坐擁億萬的超級(jí)富豪、那些私人基金會(huì)的操盤手、那些社會(huì)中前0.1%的富人精英從幕后來到臺(tái)前了。在此,希望有關(guān)人士自愿簽署“危機(jī)慈善承諾書”,該項(xiàng)活動(dòng)由萊納德及索菲?戴維斯基金會(huì)聯(lián)合發(fā)起,名為“WhyNot Initiative”(為什么不采取行動(dòng)),旨在呼吁更多人主動(dòng)承擔(dān)起危機(jī)下的社會(huì)責(zé)任,共同挽救國(guó)家經(jīng)濟(jì)。簽署該項(xiàng)承諾的個(gè)人或機(jī)構(gòu)需要在今年按規(guī)定比率捐出總資產(chǎn)中的一定金額(不低于10萬美元),以此幫助美國(guó)渡過難關(guān)。
其實(shí)現(xiàn)在美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)已經(jīng)在起草與之相似的“緊急性慈善事業(yè)激勵(lì)法案”了,未來或?qū)⒘⒎ㄒ蟾缓肋B續(xù)三年每年捐款定量的金額,但作為慈善事業(yè)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人,深諳“盡早行動(dòng)”的道理,立法的過程緩慢而艱巨,慈善團(tuán)體必須加快步伐。
在項(xiàng)目初始階段,該項(xiàng)承諾書對(duì)于捐款人的要求并不嚴(yán)苛:凈資產(chǎn)在2500萬美元以上的捐款方需要抽出其資產(chǎn)中的2%;凈資產(chǎn)在1.5億美元以上的捐款方需要抽出其資產(chǎn)中的3%;凈資產(chǎn)在10億美元以上的捐款方需要抽出其資產(chǎn)中的4%;凈資產(chǎn)在250億美元以上的捐款方需要抽出其資產(chǎn)中的5%,以此遞進(jìn)。
不少批評(píng)人士指出該方案的數(shù)字金額太少,對(duì)此本人完全贊同,畢竟一個(gè)億萬富翁不可能只花4000萬美元就能買到死后晉升天堂的坐席。但是,我們確乎需要尋找到一個(gè)可行的出發(fā)點(diǎn)。如果能積少成多,這也會(huì)幫助我們籌集到上千億美元,給當(dāng)下的疫情危機(jī)打上一針聊勝于無的強(qiáng)心劑。
總的來說,這份承諾書的意旨不在于“捐給誰”,而在于“現(xiàn)在就捐”。僅僅承諾在今后的某個(gè)時(shí)間點(diǎn)去捐贈(zèng),哪怕捐得再多也是不能解決問題的。疫情之下,很多社會(huì)弊端被無情地暴露出來,我們已經(jīng)沒有時(shí)間去慢慢修復(fù)它們了。
面對(duì)社會(huì)中近乎荒謬的不公平與不公正,很多富人也在跟著一起大聲疾呼,甚至有人還對(duì)政府呼吁要提高自己的稅收金額。但是,當(dāng)社會(huì)真正需要他們的時(shí)候,當(dāng)他們有機(jī)會(huì)回報(bào)社會(huì)的時(shí)候,某些人卻守著自己的資產(chǎn)不肯放手,這是何等的令人心寒。是時(shí)候了,讓社會(huì)中最富有的人參與進(jìn)來,鼓勵(lì)他們做出承諾,和所有人一起,為美國(guó)做出有意義的改變。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
本文作者艾倫?戴維斯是萊納德及索菲?戴維斯基金會(huì)主席、愛國(guó)富翁協(xié)會(huì)成員、“WhyNot Initiative”活動(dòng)發(fā)起人。
編譯:陳怡軒
如今,每一位美國(guó)人都身陷囹圄,堪稱一生中最艱難的時(shí)刻。那么美國(guó)的600余位億萬富翁,以及那些坐擁數(shù)十億美元的慈善基金會(huì)都到哪里去了呢?他們本該是力挽狂瀾的主力軍,然而,比起攜手解決當(dāng)下的困境,他們似乎更關(guān)心自己的大金庫(kù)——在捐款博彩的背后,更多的是精打細(xì)算。是時(shí)候來聊聊他們了。
單看這些億萬富翁的捐款總額,很容易給人一種“慷慨大方”的錯(cuò)覺。但其實(shí)在慷慨與否這件事上,百分比更能說明問題。以比爾?蓋茨為例,他一共捐了3億美元救助金,或許對(duì)大多數(shù)人而言,這已經(jīng)是一個(gè)天文數(shù)字,但對(duì)蓋茨本人,這不過是九牛一毛而已。以他的身家,3億美元不過是其凈資產(chǎn)中的0.3%。以其每年的被動(dòng)投資收益進(jìn)行計(jì)算,即便他每隔兩周就捐出3億美元,到今年年底,也依然還有1000億美元。
事實(shí)上,美國(guó)上層囤積的財(cái)富已經(jīng)達(dá)到了令人發(fā)指的地步。目前,諸如蓋茨基金會(huì)、洛克菲勒基金會(huì),以及福特基金會(huì)此類的慈善機(jī)構(gòu)共計(jì)持有約1萬億美元捐款。但美國(guó)前0.1%的富豪家族資產(chǎn)已經(jīng)達(dá)到了12萬億美元,前者與后者相比,依舊相形見絀。自疫情爆發(fā)以來,美國(guó)的失業(yè)率及食品短缺率都越過紅線,沖破了歷史最高點(diǎn),然而富豪們的資產(chǎn)卻風(fēng)雨無阻地增加了4000億美元。更為糟糕的是,迄今為止,超級(jí)富豪的捐款金額幾乎沒有太大的變動(dòng)。
此外,富豪們的捐款動(dòng)機(jī)也并非表面上所說的那樣單純。捐款行為可以幫助富豪得到稅收減免優(yōu)惠,只要向私人基金會(huì)或者其他政府推薦的慈善機(jī)構(gòu)捐款,該捐款人就能被豁免70%左右的稅收。如果是一些實(shí)行高稅收政策的國(guó)家,這一優(yōu)惠力度還會(huì)更大。換言之,富豪捐款中的2/3,說到底還是來自納稅人的錢,但他們卻有權(quán)利去指定自己的受助對(duì)象。
眾所周知,比爾?蓋茨早前曾經(jīng)發(fā)起并簽署了廣受贊譽(yù)的“捐贈(zèng)誓約”,承諾會(huì)在有生之年或在自己的遺囑中捐出半數(shù)的財(cái)富。既然如此,為什么不能早一點(diǎn)實(shí)行,早一點(diǎn)為社會(huì)做出貢獻(xiàn)呢?
在疫情和經(jīng)濟(jì)危機(jī)的雙重夾擊下,在這個(gè)水深火熱的時(shí)代,是時(shí)候讓那些坐擁億萬的超級(jí)富豪、那些私人基金會(huì)的操盤手、那些社會(huì)中前0.1%的富人精英從幕后來到臺(tái)前了。在此,希望有關(guān)人士自愿簽署“危機(jī)慈善承諾書”,該項(xiàng)活動(dòng)由萊納德及索菲?戴維斯基金會(huì)聯(lián)合發(fā)起,名為“WhyNot Initiative”(為什么不采取行動(dòng)),旨在呼吁更多人主動(dòng)承擔(dān)起危機(jī)下的社會(huì)責(zé)任,共同挽救國(guó)家經(jīng)濟(jì)。簽署該項(xiàng)承諾的個(gè)人或機(jī)構(gòu)需要在今年按規(guī)定比率捐出總資產(chǎn)中的一定金額(不低于10萬美元),以此幫助美國(guó)渡過難關(guān)。
其實(shí)現(xiàn)在美國(guó)國(guó)會(huì)已經(jīng)在起草與之相似的“緊急性慈善事業(yè)激勵(lì)法案”了,未來或?qū)⒘⒎ㄒ蟾缓肋B續(xù)三年每年捐款定量的金額,但作為慈善事業(yè)的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人,深諳“盡早行動(dòng)”的道理,立法的過程緩慢而艱巨,慈善團(tuán)體必須加快步伐。
在項(xiàng)目初始階段,該項(xiàng)承諾書對(duì)于捐款人的要求并不嚴(yán)苛:凈資產(chǎn)在2500萬美元以上的捐款方需要抽出其資產(chǎn)中的2%;凈資產(chǎn)在1.5億美元以上的捐款方需要抽出其資產(chǎn)中的3%;凈資產(chǎn)在10億美元以上的捐款方需要抽出其資產(chǎn)中的4%;凈資產(chǎn)在250億美元以上的捐款方需要抽出其資產(chǎn)中的5%,以此遞進(jìn)。
不少批評(píng)人士指出該方案的數(shù)字金額太少,對(duì)此本人完全贊同,畢竟一個(gè)億萬富翁不可能只花4000萬美元就能買到死后晉升天堂的坐席。但是,我們確乎需要尋找到一個(gè)可行的出發(fā)點(diǎn)。如果能積少成多,這也會(huì)幫助我們籌集到上千億美元,給當(dāng)下的疫情危機(jī)打上一針聊勝于無的強(qiáng)心劑。
總的來說,這份承諾書的意旨不在于“捐給誰”,而在于“現(xiàn)在就捐”。僅僅承諾在今后的某個(gè)時(shí)間點(diǎn)去捐贈(zèng),哪怕捐得再多也是不能解決問題的。疫情之下,很多社會(huì)弊端被無情地暴露出來,我們已經(jīng)沒有時(shí)間去慢慢修復(fù)它們了。
面對(duì)社會(huì)中近乎荒謬的不公平與不公正,很多富人也在跟著一起大聲疾呼,甚至有人還對(duì)政府呼吁要提高自己的稅收金額。但是,當(dāng)社會(huì)真正需要他們的時(shí)候,當(dāng)他們有機(jī)會(huì)回報(bào)社會(huì)的時(shí)候,某些人卻守著自己的資產(chǎn)不肯放手,這是何等的令人心寒。是時(shí)候了,讓社會(huì)中最富有的人參與進(jìn)來,鼓勵(lì)他們做出承諾,和所有人一起,為美國(guó)做出有意義的改變。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
本文作者艾倫?戴維斯是萊納德及索菲?戴維斯基金會(huì)主席、愛國(guó)富翁協(xié)會(huì)成員、“WhyNot Initiative”活動(dòng)發(fā)起人。
編譯:陳怡軒
In the midst of the worst economic crisis any of us have faced in our lifetimes, those who are most able to afford to help—the 600 or so billionaires in the U.S. and billion-dollar charitable foundations—are more concerned with protecting their vast piles of wealth than they are with fixing the problems we’re facing. Ultra-wealthy so-called philanthropists are pinching pennies while asking for praise, and it’s time for Americans to call them out.
America’s billionaires might seem generous when you look at the absolute amount they give, but percentages are much more telling when it comes to measuring generosity. Bill Gates, for example, is giving $300 million for COVID-19 relief, a number too large for most of us to fathom. But here’s the thing: According to his estimated wealth as of this writing, Gates is giving just 0.3% of his net worth. It’s a big number, but it’s pocket change for him. Based on estimates of what he earns on passive investments, Gates could contribute $300 million every two weeks and still have the same $100 billion at the end of the year as he had in the beginning.
The staggering amounts of hoarded wealth are almost beyond comprehension. Foundations like Gates, Rockefeller, and Ford are sitting on endowments of nearly $1 trillion, but even that is dwarfed by the $12 trillion held by the top 0.1% of households. And things are only getting worse. Food shortages and unemployment are at record highs, yet billionaires managed to add over $400 billion to their collective holdings just since this crisis began. Yet so far this year, the ultra-rich have barely increased their giving at all.
It’s even more insulting when you consider that most of what they give away is your money. The rich get large tax deductions for their donations—in fact, money donated to private foundations and donor-advised funds can enjoy tax benefits of as much as 70%, and even more in high-income tax states. This means that rich people control who gets the money, but because they get such a big tax cut for every dollar they give away, more than two-thirds of their giving should really be considered taxpayer money.
To his credit, Gates initiated and signed the Giving Pledge, with which billionaires commit to giving away more than half of their wealth in their lifetimes or in their wills. Why not start now, and give back more than they continue to accumulate?
With a pandemic and economic crisis, it is time for the hoarders—those who control private foundations, sit on donor-advised funds, and rank in the top 0.1% of households—to step up. I encourage them to sign on to the Crisis Charitable Commitment, an effort of the WhyNot Initiative of the Leonard and Sophie Davis Fund, both of which I lead. Signing on means agreeing to contribute a minimum of $100,000 to nonprofits in 2020 at or above defined minimum percentages of net worth.
This is consistent with the proposal for an emergency charitable stimulus bill, which would require this payout each year for three years. But we can’t wait for legislation—the philanthropic community must step up.
For the 0.1 percenters, this pledge establishes what could be considered a generosity standard for charitable donations, akin to tithing: 2% of assets over $25 million, 3% of assets over $150 million, 4% of assets over $1 billion, and 5% of assets over $25 billion. I accept the criticism that these numbers are low—a billionaire should not be able to buy a seat in heaven by giving just $40 million. But we need to start somewhere, and this will generate a few hundred billion dollars to mitigate damage caused by the coronavirus crisis.
The pledge doesn’t dictate where to give the money—just to give, and give now. Pledges to give lavishly at some point decades in the future aren’t the answer. The pandemic has laid bare the many problems we face, and we don’t have luxury of time when it comes to fixing them.
It’s frustrating to see so many people of wealth speak out about the absurd inequality that exists in our country, even proposing higher taxes on themselves, and yet, when the critical need and opportunity to give back arises, these same people hoard far more than they help. It’s time the richest among us get on board, take the pledge, and make a meaningful difference.
Alan Davis is director of the WhyNot Initiative, president of the Leonard and Sophie Davis Fund, and a member of Patriotic Millionaires.