Westerners generally believe that human nature is good, so charity is more developed, right?

Since it is charity, although it depends on material possession, the subjective choice lies in the spiritual level.

I suggest not to look at the legalization of the west with a colored eye. China's laws include some systems whose predecessors came from the West. After all, from the perspective of development, China is a fault, a reform, not a matter of course.

Most western countries developed naturally, or gradually improved their modern systems after a long period of reform, which has a good reference for China, so we can take fewer detours and enjoy more achievements.

If it is a businessman's idea, charity has its commercial significance. For example, some products are similar to the slogan "sell a bottle and donate a dime", which is to promote charity as a business.

This kind of promotion method with charity slogan will not be discussed here.

Just mention real charity.

True charity is giving without asking for anything in return.

In ancient China, I thought it was better to separate some porridge from charity to accumulate virtue. Including the current purchase of fish and turtles, the original intention is not to do good deeds, but to accumulate virtue, which is purposeful and pursues returns.

How much money can a big family have to buy porridge? It is remarkable that the total assets can account for 1%.

Of course, charity is good, not the pursuit of merit. I think this is real charity.

Charity is not a necessity. Whether to do charity or not depends only on whether a person wants to do it subjectively.

In China, due to the national conditions, it is impossible to raise funds illegally in the name of individuals. All the operating costs of the foundation need to be borne by individuals. There is basically no personal foundation that can be maintained for a long time.

China's encouragement of charity is not perfect, and there are still many loopholes that need to wait.

In foreign countries, one is to allow funds, investment foundations (in order to be self-sustaining), tax exemption, high inheritance tax and other favorable policies.

This is a matter of national conditions, and another is an ideological issue.

When Deng Xiaoping gets rich first, some regions and people can get rich first, so as to drive and help other regions and people and gradually achieve the same prosperity.

This is the original intention of the elderly, but it is not suitable for China's national conditions, both spiritually and culturally.

Our material is very developed and developing rapidly, but the spiritual level is very poor, and there are still faults in the spiritual level, which leads to the existence of small-scale peasant thought, landlord thought, official standard thought and so on in the modern system.

This kind of getting rich first and then getting rich is actually that society is beneficial to me and I finally give back to society.

I think this idea is very close to human nature and nature. The nutrition of trees comes from the land, and the leaves and fruits of trees in winter give nutrition back to the land, which is a long-term and mutually beneficial state.

But now, some people are rich and heartless. On the surface, they seem to be smart and have paid nothing, but in practice, they have broken the rule of mutual benefit. The poorer the land, the less nutrients he gets. The more he squeezes, the poorer the land becomes. This is a phenomenon that the opposite direction cannot be maintained for a long time.

For example, two celebrities in the top five of the wealth list, one is Bill Gates and the other is Buffett.

Bill Gates:

Bill Gates has topped Forbes' list of the world's richest people for six years in a row, and he also ranks first in the "50 most generous American philanthropists of our time" published by Businessweek magazine. His total donation reached $25.6 billion, accounting for 60% of his current assets.

Recently, Bill Gates made public his will, in which he announced that he would leave 98% of all his property to the Gates Fund he founded. "The Gates Foundation was established in 1999 1 1. In the first year of its launch, it invested in 60 donation projects, with a total donation amount of14.4 billion US dollars, which was 300 million US dollars more than that of the US government. Bill Gates plans to inject more than $654.38 billion into the Gates Foundation every year, of which 60% will be used for anti-disease projects in poor countries. When a reporter asked him the original intention of setting up the Gates Fund, he said: "Wealth is a responsibility. At present, there are 2.8 billion people living in poverty in the world, 654.38+300 million people live on less than 654.38+0 dollars a day, 800 million people go hungry, and 60% people live in areas lacking basic sanitation facilities. As the richest man in the world, I have the responsibility to turn my wealth into the happiness of others and eliminate hunger, poverty and disease for more people. " So as early as 2000, at a conference on "Expanding Computer Applications in Developing Countries" held in Seattle, Bill Gates expressed his view in dismay: "The poorest 800 million people in the world need medical care most, not laptops! "

For example, Forbes magazine reported that Gates' charitable foundation achieved a return of $3.9 billion with a capital of $26.8 billion in 2003, with a return rate as high as 14.5%, which is higher than many profit-oriented enterprises. As long as the foundation donates 5% of its total assets every year, it can avoid paying more taxes, and 95% of its assets are used for investment, which makes it impossible to make ends meet, but the scale of the foundation is getting bigger and bigger. At that time, it also caused social controversy about Gates' tax avoidance through the foundation.

But in fact, no matter how much money Gates invested in the foundation, it is no longer the money in Gates' own pocket. The government's tax relief is to allow more donations to be directly used by donors, and the high return on investment of the foundation is due to its outstanding investment ability, which enables the foundation to operate for a long time, with the ultimate goal of developing charity.

Buffett:

Many years ago, Buffett made it clear to his children: "If you can get a penny from my inheritance, you are lucky." In other words, none of the Buffett couple's three children can inherit even a penny from the parents of the super rich.

This is no joke. Buffett once bought a farm for his son Howard under the persuasion of his wife. Howard must pay the rent on time, otherwise he will take it back immediately. Buffett's three children are his eldest daughter Susie, his eldest son Howard and his youngest son Peter. These children are all over 30 years old, and their father's capital is growing rapidly, but he has to support himself. Howard is a photographer, Peter is a musician and Susie is a housewife, but she is by no means an idle rich woman.

Buffett warned the children: "As long as you vote for the right mother, you can have food and clothing all your life, which has damaged the concept of fairness in my heart." When Buffett said these words, the company held a general meeting of shareholders, and 1.5 million shareholders listened to applause. Buffett went on to say, "My children are here, too! Are they clapping too? "

In his will, Buffett announced that he would donate 99% of his personal wealth of more than 30 billion dollars to charity, provide scholarships for poor students and fund medical research in family planning. He believes that it will be his "failure" if the money is allocated to those famous universities. "These universities have their own good students and government funding. 75 years ago, Rockefeller donated huge sums of money to black schools, which had never received donations from the rich. Rockefeller did something important, which means a lot to me. "

In my opinion, these two people understand a rule better, that is, wealth comes from society. When they get rich, they should also give back to society.

LZ may wonder why these two smart people do things that seem so thankless.

Let me analyze it.

One is the long-term favorable state brought by obeying the rules, and the west attaches great importance to credibility.

If a person doesn't have enough credibility, then he can't survive in the west.

China, the crisis of confidence has always been a big problem. Whether it is food, goods, doctors and patients, skin care products, travel, houses, etc. We all have a crisis of confidence. Food is afraid of toxicity, articles are afraid of carcinogens, doctors and patients are afraid of being cheated, doctors are afraid of being killed, skin care products are afraid of allergenic carcinogens, tourists are afraid of scalpers, and houses are afraid of delaying ten years or cutting corners.

But there are so many things about China that sometimes we get used to distrust. I think this is a bad state. Everyone is murdering each other, or being lazy, hating the rich and being too poor. How can we develop quickly and effectively without leaving sequelae?

The inheritance tax abroad is very high, and basically half of the property is confiscated, so charity is also to leave a good reputation and reputation for children, which will also be conducive to self-development in society.

I can't remember whether the inheritance tax in China was drafted recently or formally. Fame doesn't seem very important in China. For example, if a painter plagiarizes other people's paintings, we will still pursue them. A star, regardless of his personality, still has many people who love him. A rich man (rich woman), whether he is dirty or clean, is still an upstart, and many women (men) who like luxury love him.

We pay too much attention to the benefits of seeing and forget the benefits that fame brings us. Including doing good deeds now, many people think that this person is a fool, and those who do good deeds will feel that they have met a fool without saying anything. The existence of reputation, one is influence and the other is binding, which can be said to be morality or rules. If you don't follow the rules, or there are no certain rules, things will definitely be chaotic.

Just like a sentence intercepted before, Buffett warned the children: "As long as you vote for the right mother, you can have food and clothing all your life, which has damaged the concept of fairness in my heart."

He is well aware of the importance of maintaining the rules. Maintaining rules is not a fool's behavior, but a most mutually beneficial long-term view and a long-term choice after examination.

Therefore, the reason for the development of charity is not only the only good, but also the comprehensive reasons such as social development, cultural level and national policies.