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

since it is charity, it depends on how much you have, but the subjective choice lies in the spiritual level.

I suggest that we should not look at the legalization in 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, and it is a reform, not a matter of course.

most of the western countries have developed naturally, or the modern system has been gradually improved after a long period of reform, which has a good reference significance 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 the propaganda of doing business with charity.

This kind of sales promotion method with charity slogan is not discussed here.

only mention real charity.

true charity is to give without asking for anything in return.

In my opinion, instead of all the porridge in ancient China being attributed to charity, a part of it should be attributed to merit. Including the current purchase of fish and turtles for release, its original intention is not to do good deeds, but to accumulate merits, which is purposeful and pursues returns.

how much money can a large family have for porridge? It is amazing that the proportion of total assets can account for 1%.

Of course, it's charity, not the pursuit of merit. I think it's real charity.

charity is not a necessary thing. 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, and all the operating costs of foundations need to be borne by individuals, which basically means giving as much as possible. There is no individual foundation that can be sustained for a long time.

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

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

this is a matter of national conditions, and another is an issue of ideology.

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

This is the original intention of the old man, but it is not suitable for China's national conditions because of the spiritual level or the cultural level.

Our material development is very advanced and rapid, but the spiritual level is poor, and there are still gaps 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.

getting rich first, then getting rich, actually means that the society is good for me, and I finally give back to the 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 in winter give back nutrients to the land, which is a long-term state of mutual benefit.

But now, some people are rich and heartless. On the surface, they seem to be very smart and have not paid anything, but the practical significance is to break the rules of mutual benefit. The poorer the land is, the less nutrients he gets. The more he squeezes, the poorer the land is. This is a phenomenon that cannot be maintained for a long time in the opposite direction.

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

Bill Gates:

Bill Gates has topped the Forbes list of the world's richest people for six years in a row, and he also ranked first in the "Top 5 Most Generous American Philanthropists in Modern Times" published by Businessweek magazine, with a total donation of $25.6 billion, accounting for 6% of his current assets.

Recently, Bill Gates made his will public, in which he announced that he would leave 98% of all his property to the Gates Fund he founded. "The Gates Foundation was founded in November 1999. In its first year, it invested in 6 donation projects, with a total donation of $1.44 billion, which was $3 million more than the donation from the US government. Bill Gates plans to inject more than $1 billion into the Gates Foundation every year, 6% of which will be used for anti-disease projects in poor countries. When a reporter asked him the original intention of establishing the Gates Fund, he said, "Wealth is a responsibility. At present, 2.8 billion people in the world live in poverty, 1.3 billion people live on less than $1 a day, 8 million people are hungry, and 6% 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 2, at a conference on" Expanding Computer Applications in Developing Countries "held in Seattle, Bill Gates expressed his views in amazement:" The poorest 8 million people in the world need medical care most, not laptops! "

As reported by Forbes magazine, Gates' charitable foundation gained a return of $3.9 billion with a capital of $26.8 billion in 23, with a return rate as high as 14.5%, which is higher than that of many profit-oriented enterprises. As long as the foundation donates 5% of its total assets every year, it can avoid paying more taxes, and the other 95% of its assets are used for investment, making 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 puts in the foundation, it will no longer be the money in Gates' own pocket. The government's tax relief is to make more money directly used for donors, and the high return on investment of the foundation is due to its outstanding investment ability, which makes the operation of the foundation last 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 will be lucky." That is to say, none of the Buffett couple's three children can inherit even a penny of property from their super-rich parents.

This is no joke. Buffett was persuaded by his wife to buy a farm for his son Howard, and Howard had to pay the rent on time, otherwise he would 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 over 3 years old, and their father's capital keeps increasing rapidly, but they have to stand on their own feet. Howard is a photographer, Peter is a musician, and Susie is a housewife, but she is by no means a rich lady who does nothing.

Buffett warned the children: "The idea that you can have enough food and clothing for life as long as you are born right has damaged the concept of fairness in my heart." When Buffett made these remarks, the company held a general meeting of shareholders, and 15, shareholders listened to the applause. Buffett went on to say, "My children are also here! Are they clapping too? "

In his will, Buffett announced that he would donate 99% of his personal wealth of more than $3 billion to charity to provide scholarships for poor students and fund medical research in family planning. He believes that if the money is allocated to those well-known universities, it will be his "failure". "These universities have their own good students and government funding. 75 years ago, Rockefeller donated huge sums of money to black schools, which never received donations from the rich. Rockefeller has done some important things, which are meaningful to me. "

In my opinion, these two people understand a rule better, that is, wealth comes from society, and 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 trust has always been a big problem. Whether it is food, articles, doctors and patients, skin care products, travel, houses, etc., we all have a crisis of trust. Food is afraid of being toxic, articles are afraid of containing carcinogens, doctors and patients are afraid of being cheated, doctors are afraid of being killed, skin care products contain allergens and carcinogens, travel is afraid of scalpers, and houses are afraid of delaying for ten years or cutting corners.

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

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

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

We pay too much attention to the benefits of seeing and forget the benefits of fame. Including doing good now, there are many people who think that this person is a fool, and those who are doing good will feel that they have met a fool without saying anything. The existence of reputation, one is influence, the other is binding, which can be said to be morality or rules. If you don't follow the rules, or don't have certain rules, things will definitely be chaotic.

Just like a sentence intercepted before, Buffett warned the children: "The idea that I can live without food and clothing as long as I vote for the right mother has damaged the concept of fairness in my heart."

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

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