To the Super Rich: Followthe Americans’ Example

Generous Billionaires

In comparison to generous American billionaires, many wealthy Germans are sitting on their wallets. Very wealthy people like Bill Gates are setting an example for collective responsibility, which is lacking in Germany and Europe.

In present day dollars, it cost just about $100 billion for the United States to go to the moon. When Neil Armstrong became the first human to walk on the moon on July 20, 1969, a 14-year-old Gates had begun tinkering with computers. Forty years later, he may be considerably more famous than all of the Apollo astronauts combined, and he is far richer. He has now teamed up with legendary investor Warren Buffet to start the Giving Pledge campaign. The extremely wealthy are expected to promise to donate a large portion of their fortune to this cause. According to the first reports, $100 billion has been pledged.

The United States has had a long tradition of allowing people to partake in their own personal “pursuit of happiness.” And so, Gates ranks not only far ahead of the world’s richest people, but also in the category that asks, “Who is giving the most?” Already, he has raised approximately $27.5 billion for socially useful purposes. Even more important than the sheer amount of money is his goal of withholding almost all of his estimated $50 billion fortune from his heirs. His children are to receive only 0.02 percent of it. By giving his money away like this, the Microsoft founder is making himself into a traditional American philanthropist. Michael Bloomberg, New York City mayor and billionaire, summarized this culture by saying, “I am a big believer in giving it all away and have always said that the best financial planning ends with bouncing the check to the undertaker.”

In Germany, by contrast, only small change is being donated. Relative to the total fortunes of their founders, many donations in Germany and Europe frequently are taking a more established route. Doing good and possibly erecting a memorial to oneself in the process takes only a small amount of money.

Interestingly enough, this connection barely plays a role in public perception. SAP founders Dietmar Hopp, Hasso Plattner and Klaus Tschira, are becoming prominent examples of German philanthropists, with each donating almost all of their billion dollar fortunes to charity. In the same breath, there are many heirs to family companies who have only donated a fraction of their inherited estates.

Social gratitude and public recognition, nevertheless, fall upon both groups of wealthy Germans to the same extent. To be sure, even direct government accolades and the issuance of medals and honors are a purely reactive duty. As a consequence, the people who receive the accolades, as occurs in almost all political contexts, are most frequently those who shout “Here!” the loudest. Injustices are present, and many commitments worthy of recognition remain unrecognized.

This is why few people engage in philanthropy. At the same time, the typically requested minimal contribution of 500 euros for an individual citizen’s donation is usually more difficult to obtain than the contribution of up to $50 million from a corporate heiress with a fortune in the billions. Her commitment should not be minimized, but would be especially important in times of growing uncertainty, when even more wealthy people would utilize large portions of their fortunes for the common good.

Gates, Buffett and Other Examples

With the culture of collective responsibility exemplified by Gates, Buffett and others, many things in Germany could also be turned around. The German language used to have the beautiful concept of “Solidargemeinschaft,” which cannot really be translated into English. Unfortunately, over time, the expression has taken on such a political meaning that one must be careful about using it in the proper context. It now has a negative connotation and is used to describe people who have much to give and who, for the most part, are not found on the left wing of the political spectrum.

At the same time, even economists have long recognized that the economic model of human behavior should be amended. Material wealth and its individual marginal benefits, consumption and affluence, have not made people happier. That is why it is well understood to be in everyone’s best interest to donate, to be allowed to participate and to be committed. And the beauty of the model provided by American billionaires is that they decide for themselves where their money goes and for what social causes.

This can be an example, even for people who do not have material wealth to give away, because the term, “fortune,” can mean so many things. Every individual is capable of doing something. Even time and ideas can be regarded as a “fortune.” We are all challenged in this regard, not just the super rich. Their poor commitment makes them targets for accusations that they are not being responsible citizens.

What did Neil Armstrong say as he stepped onto the moon? “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” We’ll modify it to say that being committed is only one small step for a person, but a giant leap towards a better future for our society.