Why Do Rich Americans Feel So Strongly About Charities?

Published in Huanqiu
(China) on 26 May 2010
by Zi Zhongyun (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Michelle Deeter. Edited by Harley Jackson.
(A lecture given at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences American Research Institute by Professor Zi Zhongyun, former director of the Tianze Economic Research Institute)

In American society, there are tens of thousands of large and small private foundations established for the public good, which are independent from the government. The government supports them by giving them tax deductions, and also monitors them with relevant laws. This is how American foundations became so enormous. Traditional thinking and social values, however, played a more important role in expanding American foundations.

There are three reasons why today's American foundations are different than traditional charitable activities. First, their goal is to cure. Many foundations in America have slogans like "fighting the causes of poverty." Second, they are well organized, and they use donations methodically. Since the foundations work within a strong organizational framework, the use of every last bit of money will undergo rigorous evaluations. Third, the organizations work to "teach a man how to fish" and not "give a man a fish." They mainly work to help others become self-reliant and break free from the shackles of poverty. They also carefully avoid making their beneficiaries lazy. For this reason, even though there are countless development projects, most projects focus on either education or health, which gives more people a chance to receive an education and adequate health care. This gives Americans a fair chance to compete. Since the beginning of the last century, these foundations have emphasized the development of a sustainable society. Some of the foundations have even cooperated with United Nations institutions, which has helped the non-profit sector develop.

According to my investigations, Americans typically believe that people become wealthy due to their own ability. However, those who become wealthy should repay society. Every citizen and every company should feel responsible for society. Donating to the community is not only considered a duty but also a right of the benefactor. Donating to the community is a value shared by all of society: people are pushed by an invisible force to fulfill this duty to society.

The increasing gap between the rich and the poor at the beginning of the 20th century caused sharp social conflict, which caused the non-profit sector to be born.

The essence of America's institutions widened the gap between the rich and the poor. If this process were allowed to run its course, the gap would become wider and wider, and the resulting social conflict would become unbearable. This would happen in any society. It happened in Europe in the 19th century with Marxism. Society was no longer able to tolerate the increasing gap between the rich and the poor, which caused many kinds of reformist thinking.

These events occurred later in America. After the American Civil War, from the end of 19th century until the beginning of the 20th century, the industrial capacity of the country developed very quickly. The rate at which people accumulated wealth was unprecedented in history and unparalleled in other countries. Furthermore, the wealth was concentrated in a few hands, increasing the acuteness of social conflict. In addition, the government tended to be rather corrupt. The corruption was caused by Congressmen conspiring with a few big capitalists, a system in which the former would pass a few laws that were beneficial to the latter. Then they would share the spoils. This type of situation tends to encourage, resist or stabilize the polarization of wealth in society.

How did America alleviate this conflict between the rich and poor? First, it increased social monitoring and media monitoring. Second, it created a strong government welfare policy. In addition, it encouraged the establishment of private charities, which had a remarkable effect on alleviating the social conflict in America at that time.

Emphasizing Education and Medical Treatment

Every country in every time period has public welfare or charities. As long as there is a wide gap between the rich and the poor, there will be charities. In Europe, the churches were responsible for doing charitable activities. In general, the wealthy members of a community have a responsibility to give money and other goods to society. The oldest form of donating occurred when the wealthy gave to the church and the church redistributed to the poor. Later, specific laws were enacted. It was decreed that the rich people in a diocese would be required to give money and goods to the poor. This was one kind of tradition. In America, however, things were different. Americans created a new institution of foundations, which had its own special characteristics.

First of all, they are organized differently. They seek to get to the root of the problem instead of just alleviating the symptoms. In other words, they "teach a man to fish" rather than "giving a man a fish." When a foundation receives donations, those funds are organized and managed using modern methods. Foundations have specific goals and detailed concepts about how they will use donations, the most important of which is that the money must be used to help solve fundamental social problems.

John D. Rockefeller, one of the earliest philanthropists, believed that disadvantaged groups were less likely to receive an education. The poorer a child was, the less likely it would go to school, causing a vicious cycle. At the same time, disadvantaged groups had poor nutrition so they were less healthy. This caused them to be unable to compete with others. Eventually they would be totally unable to compete. For this reason, philanthropists would especially focus on education, health, and medicine. Of course, each philanthropist would have his or her own priorities. For example, Rockefeller largely donated to health and medicine projects. He donated a lot of money to projects that developed new drugs such as penicillin. Therefore, America's different kinds of education and different kinds of foundations all had huge influences on society.

I would particularly like to mention the following fact. When the Carnegie Foundation was first founded, Andrew Carnegie donated $5.6 million to education. In that same year, the American government's educational funding totaled $5 million. As an individual, Carnegie donated more to education than the entire American government. In any case, his extreme wealth was very important. This tradition has been passed on through the years, even to Bill Gates. Some say that Bill Gates loves to read Carnegie's essays because they form the basis of the modern welfare society. Carnegie and others believed that people needed to donate part of their wealth during their entire lifetime. They believed that their so-called dignified lifestyle needs society's approval. The wisdom to spend money well is just the same as the wisdom to earn money well.

America's educational television station was developed by the Ford Foundation and American television stations. It does not have any advertisements, and it specializes in showing educational programs. When programs like Sesame Street were first aired, television was just becoming widely available in America. Some children who were unable to go to school could get education in their homes. Sesame Street is just one of many milestones of that time.

There are many social reasons for this phenomenon; why did it happen in America? First of all, there was no country that had as many millionaires as America. In particular, no country had so much of its wealth concentrated in the hands of individuals who became wealthy very quickly. The second reason has to do with American thinking. Americans believe that as long as people receive an education, they can improve their standard of living. Third, wealthy people recognized that they benefitted from society and believed that each person was the master of their own fate. For this reason, they thought they had a responsibility to improve society.

The American Government Used Tax Deductions to Encourage Donations and Carefully Monitored Charities and Non-Profit Groups

In 1917, after the first charities were created, the American government created a tax deduction policy which encouraged donations. The government tax policy even encouraged less wealthy people to donate whatever amount they could from their salary and receive a tax deduction. In this way, donating to charity became a very common occurrence. At the same time, the government monitored these non-profit organizations to see if they were following the law. Using a non-profit organization to evade taxes and using donations to do business or advertising for a company was not allowed. These laws were not created in a day. After ten years of countless hearings, foundations were finally able to develop healthily. The modern version of the non-profit tax law was basically finished in 1969. There were some revisions but the overall structure did not change. These tax laws determined the following things: what was considered a non-profit organization, what a philanthropic organization was, what these organizations were allowed to do and what they were not allowed to do. The government strictly forbade these organizations from partaking in political activities such as giving donations to an election candidate or using donations for lobbying. Foundations were allowed to sell stock, and the stock could increase in value and could be managed by experts, but speculation on these stocks was not allowed. Later there was a law that stated foundations had to use up 5 percent of their funds every year. Foundations would give audits to Congress every year.

Foundations Are Very Transparent

American foundations are very transparent. Starting in 1969, the tax law stated that each non-profit organization had to report to the Internal Revenue Service, explaining which projects they wanted to accomplish, how much money it would need and the how much the organization owned in assets. For this reason, every year each organization has an annual report, which can be found online. Any citizen can find this report. When I visited the Carnegie Foundation in New York to find out the yearly assets of the organization, the woman at the front desk printed a detailed copy of their report. Unlike companies, they do not have any secrets. The transparency of non-profit organizations ensures that they do not become corrupt.

I think asking these kinds of questions is absolutely necessary. The government can monitor these organizations and improve the law while organizations can have a clear concept of their mission. Moreover, it ties in with America's volunteerism. Those who have money give money, and those who have strength give their own strength. This system is taken for granted in America. For this reason, not only wealthy people contribute to public welfare but almost everyone donates a little money. In conclusion, everyone must give some money or do some community service. On one hand, America is an extremely individualistic society that values personal struggle, cruel competition and allowing only the strong to survive. On the other hand, without this spirit of volunteerism, American society would not have been able to last until today.

The proportion of GDP taken up by public welfare is between three and four percent. Ever since the second half of the 20th century, public welfare provided by private citizens was indispensible even though it could not substitute the government's welfare policy. Some conservative administrations such as Ronald Reagan's administration and George W. Bush's administration think the government should reduce its welfare initiatives. Many people say these administrations rob from the poor to give to the rich. That is, their policy made the private sector responsible for many initiatives, and many people criticized this move. Even though the private public welfare system is developing well now, it is still unable to take the place of the government. The government must be responsible for the welfare system. If this is true for America, this is definitely the case for other countries.



中国社会科学院美国研究所前所长资中筠教授在天则经济研究所的演讲

  在美国社会有大大小小上万个民间公益基金会,它们独立于政府。政府通过税收制度予以鼓励,同时用相关的法律予以监督。专门做美国研究的资中筠认为美国基金会之所以如此庞大,“更重要的是思想传统和社会价值”。

  资中筠介绍,美国现代公益事业与传统的慈善活动不同,主要有三个特征:一是其目标是“治本”,美国不少基金会的口号是“向贫困的根源开战”;二是有组织、科学地用钱,其有健全的组织架构,每笔钱的用途都会加以严格评估;三是“授人以渔”,不是“授人以鱼”,其主要是帮助人自立以摆脱贫困,很注意避免养“懒汉”。因此,美国的基金会所开展的项目虽然林林总总,但教育和健康领域始终是最集中的关注点,有了平等的受教育机会和健康的体魄,就有公平的竞争机会。而从上世纪末开始,这些基金会更加侧重致力于社会的可持续性发展,一些大基金会与联合国有关机构联手合作,这也成为现代社会公益事业发展的一个方面。

  在资中筠的观察中,美国人普遍认为,发财是自己有能力,但发了财就应该回报社会,每个公民、包括每个企业都应该对社会有责任感。公益捐助在美国不但被看作是一项义务,而且是捐赠人的权利和精神寄托,从全社会的价值观而言,有一种无形的压力要人们为社会尽义务。

  20世纪初,美国国内贫富两极分化的尖锐社会矛盾催生公益慈善事业

  美国的制度本身令贫富两极分化的动力是非常强大的,如果听其自然的话,将会越来越两极分化,那么矛盾尖锐到一定程度就会坚持不下去,任何一个社会都是这样。所以在十九世纪,就是马克思主义诞生的年代,欧洲在贫富差距上的社会承受力已经到了一个极限程度,所以出现种种改良主义的思潮。

  而美国则是较晚一些,它是在南北战争以后,到19世纪末20世纪初,一方面生产力大大发展,财富的积累速度是空前的,任何一个社会无法比拟,而且财富主要集中在私人手中,但与此同时社会矛盾也尖锐化,而且政治也有腐败的趋势。它的政治腐化都是些诸如大资本家与国会议员勾结,在国会中通过有利于他们的法令,还有一种就是分赃。在此形势下,在社会中必然出现各种力量或者反抗,或者平衡这种两极分化的趋势。

  美国当时是如何缓解这种尖锐的贫富矛盾呢?第一是加强社会监督与媒体监督;第二是建立健全政府的福利政策。此外,就是大力推行私人的慈善公益事业,这对缓解当时美国的社会矛盾起了显著作用。

  重点捐助教育与医疗

  公益事业每个时代每个国家都有,就是慈善事业,只要有贫富悬殊的地方就有慈善事业,特别是在欧洲国家的教会,它的责任之一就是搞慈善事业。一般说来,一个社区的富人有责任捐钱捐物给社会,由教会再分发,这是最古老的形式,后来由法律将其确定下来。法令规定,教区的富人必须为穷人捐钱物。这是一种传统。但是说到美国,之所以称现代基金事业是一个新事物,就是它有自己的特点。

  第一,它是有组织的,它自称是治本不是治标的,用我们的话来讲,就是“授人以渔”,而非“授人以鱼”。基金会的捐赠是有组织的,它的资金的管理使用的是现代的管理办法,在给出方面又是有目的,有理念的,主要是以对社会的根本问题进行救助为观念。

  洛克菲勒等美国早期慈善家认为,弱势群体受教育程度较低,越穷越上不起学,所以这样就形成了恶性循环;同时营养不良导致健康状况不佳,就无法与别人竞争。这样一来,它就失去了竞争能力,所以早期的一批公益家的关注点在于教育,还有一个重点就是医疗卫生。当然他们各有自己的重点,像洛克菲勒就是大量捐赠医疗卫生,像那时的青霉素等很多发明都是他资助的。所以在早期,美国的各种形形色色的教育中,各种社会基金会起了很大作用。

  我一直喜欢举这样一些数字,就是在卡耐基基金会建立初期它捐赠给教育的经费是560万美元,而当年美国联邦政府的教育经费是500万美元,它一家就超过了美国联邦政府一年的教育经费。不管怎么样,它的富可敌国还是很重要的。这个传统一直传下来,包括比尔·盖茨,据说比尔·盖茨最喜欢读的文章就是卡耐基的文章,他的文章讲了现代公益社会的基础。而且他们还有一个思想就是人们要在生前把财产捐出来,卡耐基自己也是这样。他们认为所谓的体面生活是要全社会认可的,花钱的智慧和赚钱的智慧是一样的。

  美国的教育台就是福特基金会和美国电台发展出来的,没有广告,专门搞教育的。像“芝麻开门”这样的项目,是刚开始有电视的时候,有些上不起学的孩子可以在家里接受教育。类似这样的有很多的划时代的东西。

  这里面还有很多社会原因,为什么这个会产生在美国?首先,没有哪个国家像美国这样,有这么多财富集中在私人手中,而且集中得这么快;第二,就是思想方面的原因。相信人只要受了教育就能提高;三是他们这批人都是社会的受益者,有很强的主人翁精神,认为自己有责任把社会变得更好。

  美国政府通过免税政策鼓励捐赠,并对慈善基金或组织进行严格管理

  慈善基金产生后,美国政府1917年出台了相关的免税政策鼓励捐赠。政府税法甚至鼓励不是很有钱的人也可以从自己的工资中捐出一部分来免除自己的所得税,所以后来捐赠就变成非常普遍的现象。另一方面,政府监督这些非营利组织是否在做规定中要做的事情,要是借此逃税,或是用这部分钱来做生意或替企业做宣传,这都是不允许的。这些法律也不是一天就完成的,是几十年来经过无数次听证会,才使基金会有了比较健康的发展。现在执行的税法基本上完成于1969年,后来还尽管还有些调整,但是格局没有变。这个税法中规定了什么是非营利组织,什么叫公益组织,可以做什么,不可以做什么,其中最不可以做的就是不能够搞政治活动,就是不能用受捐的钱搞竞选、游说等。同时基金会自己也有股票,也是可以增值,有专门的人管理这些增值,但是不能用这些钱来炒股赚钱。所以后来就有一个规定,说基金会必须每年用去每年资产的5%,所以他们要经常向国会去报账。

  慈善基金具有很高的透明度

  美国慈善基金的透明度很大。1969年的税法规定他们每年要向税务局作报告,陈述他们要做哪些项目,需要多少钱,资产是多少。因此他们每年都有年鉴,在网上也可以查到,所以任何一个公民都可以去查账。我到卡耐基在纽约的基金会时,曾询问过他们每年的资产有多少,那位小姐就给我打印出了一份很详细的报表。这跟企业不同,它没有什么秘密。它的透明度保证了它的较少腐化。

  我觉得,这些问题都是很必要的条件,一方面有政府的监督、完善的法律、一定的理念,还有就是美国的这种志愿精神,有钱的出钱,有力的出力,这些是他们视为当然的事情。因此现在公益事业未必都是富人所为,差不多每个人都会捐点钱。总而言之,每个人都要捐点钱,或者做些义工。一方面,我们认为美国是极端的个人主义,讲究个人奋斗,残酷的竞争、淘汰;另一方面,没有这些公益精神,这个社会维持不到今天。

  美国公益事业所占的比例大概占GDP的3%~4%。自从二十世纪下半叶以来它代替不了政府的福利政策,但也是不可或缺的。有些保守政府,比如里根、小布什,都要降低政府的福利举措,许多人称为劫贫济富,就是又将大量的事情推给私人,当时就有很多人批判他们。目前私人的公益事业虽然发展得很好,但是仍然代替不了政府应该负的责任。美国尚且如此,在别的国家更是这样。
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Germany: Musk Helps the Democrats

Sri Lanka: Is America Moving toward the Far Right?

Australia: As Trump Turns His Back on Renewables, China Is Building the Future

Germany: Nerve-Wracking Back and Forth

Japan: The Role of a Diplomatic Attitude To Maintain the International Order

Topics

Turkey: Conflicting Messages to Syria: US Supports Integrity while Israel Attacks

Japan: The Role of a Diplomatic Attitude To Maintain the International Order

Russia: The 3rd-Party Idea as a Growing Trend*

Germany: Trump’s Tariffs: China Acts, Europe Reacts

Germany: Trump Is Capable of Learning

Germany: Nerve-Wracking Back and Forth

Indonesia: Trump Needs a Copy Editor

Indonesia: Trump’s Chaos Strategy Is Hurting His Allies, Not Just His Rivals

Related Articles

Germany: Trump’s Tariffs: China Acts, Europe Reacts

Australia: As Trump Turns His Back on Renewables, China Is Building the Future

Indonesia: US-China: Tariff, Tension, and Truce

China: US Chip Restrictions Backfiring

Thailand: US-China Trade Truce Didn’t Solve Rare Earths Riddle