Ma, Cook frequently being "forced to donate": corporate bosses whether or not to donate? -Ma, Cook, forced go-IT information

Philanthropy has become more and more popular.

According to the development report of China charity (2016), in 2015, total amount of donations is about 99.2 billion yuan, more than 4,800 National Foundation, national registered volunteers, more than 100 million people, accounting for 7.27% of the total national population.

Although there are more and more people involved in philanthropy, but on the amount donated, remains a minority to take a majority share. According to the hurun Research Institute released in June 2016 hurun philanthropy list, according to the 100 top philanthropists of the total donations reached 30 billion yuan, and philanthropist total contributions is to reach the top of 25.34 billion yuan.

This shows that the corporate bosses have become the backbone of the development of philanthropy. Even more pleasing is that in recent years, both the fight against floods, earthquakes and other natural disasters, is to donate money, relief to the elderly, can always see many entrepreneurs figure.

However, in the process of development of the charity cause in China, because charitable influence of the culture, customs, and business leaders act of charity began to suffer from suppression of public opinion. Now the situation is not donated would be "forced to donate", donation, donate less is said to be mean, donating many doubts will have other intentions, even more terrible is that this defect is growing trend.

"Forced donation" public opinion behind the abduction

Do not know since when, big brothers of charity road, need opinion on kidnapping.

On July 11, Apple CEO Cook through a microblog expressed condolences to the suffered flooding in southern China, he wrote on Twitter: "the floods, we with the people along the Yangtze River."

However, the section seems to be a word of condolence not effusive, beginning in its Twitter message "forced donation". Expression tactful, message "donation, the boss"; blunt "no contributions what words say"; others moved out of the "no donation is not Earth" speech.

In fact, in Cook before you publish a microblog, China Foundation for poverty alleviation has announced via Twitter that Apple had donated 7 million Yuan to support China's Yangtze River middle and lower reaches of the flood-stricken areas for emergency response. And Apple is the first to the China Foundation for poverty alleviation in the flood disaster relief contributions to United States companies.

Not only Cook, Ma had met "forced donation."

On August 12 last year after bombings, Tanggu, Tianjin, MA Twitter being all "forced donations" covered with messages. Including "so rich why don't you give money to Tianjin", the "richest should donate 100 million" and "you gave I gave", "you don't contribute, I don't treasure", "the President was made contributions, it's time to show the rich and slightly, it's time to flaunt" message on compulsory contributions.

In response, Ma said in response, donation donation is on this thing, not to donate there are reasons, but he's not, so that others do not donate it is wrong.

Indeed, no matter how rich a person, others have no right to require him to engage in philanthropy. Regardless of the Cook has donated 7 million, even though he did not donate, that is also his personal behavior, wealth is not proof of charitable or not, the rich can not charity, people without money to charity.

For these "forced donors", someone will ask you for contributions of others at the same time, did I give away? In this issue, some "forcing donors" might feel wrong, but there are still some people will justly pointed out: "I don't have so much money I donate what's the use? ”

Professionals have pointed out, this is moral when abducted, often appears as a "mixed logic", that is, responsibility to others, talking about yourself, always refer to particularities. They think enterprise bosses must contributions because they are rich and I don't have to contribute, because I was poor. Subtle, charity was recognized for is something that rich people do, in fact, it is a shirking of responsibility, but also a distorted understanding of the rich and the charity.

MA recently stated at a public meeting , the poor of this world, save up; the world's disease, treating not only. Any disaster anywhere in the world will not change because of donor money, the biggest change is that you donate money yourself, you change, will it be possible to change the world .

Under the charitable question

In addition to direct donations, charitable foundations, philanthropy standardized, long-term, is the more common experiences abroad. In recent years, as Chinese businesses continue to grow, and also became popular in China in the form of the Charity Foundation.

In April this year, MA announced that it would donate 100 million shares of company stock, and into the charity fund is preparing to support Chinese mainland medical, education, environmental protection and other philanthropic projects and cutting-edge technology and basic science research in the world.

But then questions have been raised, that Ma's move there is suspicion of tax evasion. Ma later responded to the media, this time set up a charity fund will not be withdrawn, cannot be retrieved, the formal approval of the Charity Fund, has nothing to do with personal tax arrangements.

Coincidentally, announced last December, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife donated their holdings when the 99% of Facebook shares to charity, also questioned by the local media as take donations to avoid higher tax.

Zuckerberg has responded to these questions, which noted that: "the new bodies established as limited liability companies, rather than the traditional fund model, so the shares are transferred without tax incentives, but it can be more flexible and efficient implementation of our mission. ”

According to industry analysts, "Zuckerberg new limited liability company, strictly speaking it is not defined as charity. "Because even by Zuckerberg promised, stock assets into the name of the limited liability company, which just put the money from the left pocket to the right pocket, unless the money being spent on charity, has nothing to do otherwise and charity; in capital into the Fund traditional charitable giving at that moment, ownership of funds and donors would cut off the relationship.

Why there is the question of tax avoidance, which from the United States of tax policy said. United States huge heritage inherited from the fathers are not encouraged such practices, so United States estate tax outrageous 2015 of estate tax, 40% and United States also imposes a higher capital gains tax on investment income tax rates ranging from 15% to 35%, such as selling long-term stock holdings in their hands, you need to pay capital gains tax 15%.

However, the United States for charity for a tax policy. If the donation of property to his charitable foundation, could be exempted from selling stock for the first time of a capital gains tax, inheritance tax and capital gains tax each year.

It can be said that charity tax relief system is a United States charity development catalyst. According to statistics, over the past 40 years, Americans average annual charitable donations account for United States 1.8% of gross domestic product, while the wealthiest Americans, 3/4 has its own Foundation.

In the United States under the background of the high taxes, through charity and to cut taxes, but also access to social reputation, is actually a win-win initiative. But upon returning to China, a domestic United States high inheritance taxes, and not too much on tax incentives and charity, so domestic entrepreneurship through a donation for tax purposes of argument is simply inaccurate.

According to the enterprise income tax law and the relevant provisions of the law on personal income tax, corporate and personal spending on public welfare donations and granted in a certain proportion in calculating the taxable income deduction, the current deduction for profit 12% per cent respectively, as well as personal taxable income of 30%.

According to this provision, if in the form of enterprise annual donations, can be carried out in year pre-tax deduction, if one-time donations can only be those 12% lines, beyond the part of the taxpayers. Therefore, the domestic enterprises in the donations if they want to offset some taxes, may choose to donate in batches.

China still has a long way

Compared to foreign charitable development, China still has a long way to go, the first is to change people's perception of charity.

Charity on this thing, better than nothing. Ma said to awaken the goodness in each, it is actually very important. Because when everyone involved in public interest, understanding public goods, the "forced donation" would not exist, let alone to compare and contrast how much donation.

For entrepreneurs, the social supervision is necessary, but rational. Bosses of enterprises operating businesses, both in corporate culture, management has its uniqueness, so naturally, when different with others. Check out the China philanthropy list in recent years, will find a lot of entrepreneurs have been little-known charity, they chose a low profile, and enjoy the show.

So whether it's high profile is low key, and regardless of how much of the donation, as long as they are willing to do charity, we ought to praise, so that more entrepreneurs will participate in philanthropy.

Also need to improve the system of charity, operating under charitable work in a healthy environment. Charity in China's booming in recent years, but still exposes a lot of problems and confusion, and the lack of legal regulation are not unrelated.

Fortunately, after years of efforts, China's first charitable act took effect on September 1 this year. Clear norms in the general part of the law of charity Charity protecting charitable organizations, donors, volunteers, beneficiaries of charitable activities such as the lawful rights and interests of the participants.

" Welfare mentality, business practices", this is Mr MA repeated words in talking about public service in recent years, but this sentence is more suitable for entrepreneurs, for ordinary people, the "good heart" is enough .

马云、库克频繁被“逼捐”：企业大佬究竟该不该捐？ - 马云,库克,逼捐 - IT资讯

慈善已经成为越来越大众化的事情。

据《中国慈善发展报告(2016)》统计,2015年，总社会捐赠量约为992亿元，全国基金会数量超过4800家，全国登记注册志愿者超过1亿人，占全国人口总数的7.27%。

虽然有越来越多的人参与到慈善事业中，但在捐赠额上，依然是少数人承担了绝大部分的比重。根据胡润研究院6月份发布的《2016胡润慈善榜》显示，100位上榜慈善家的总捐赠额达到300亿元，而排名前十位的慈善家捐款总额更是达到了253.4亿元。

由此可见，企业大佬们已成为推动慈善事业发展的骨干力量。更令人欣慰的是，近年来，无论是抗击洪水、地震等自然灾害，还是捐资助学、救济老人，总是可以看到众多企业家们的身影。

但是，在中国慈善事业的发展过程中，因为受到慈善捐赠的文化、风俗等因素的影响，企业大佬们的慈善举动开始遭受社会舆论的围剿。现在的处境是，不捐会被“逼捐”，捐吧，若捐少了会被说小气，捐多了也会被质疑有其他意图，更为可怕的是，这股不良之风大有愈演愈烈的趋势。

“逼捐”背后的舆论绑架

不知从何时开始，大佬们的慈善之路，需要在舆论绑架中前行。

7月11日，苹果CEO库克通过个人微博向中国南方地区遭遇的洪涝灾害表示慰问，他在微博中写道：“洪水肆虐，我们与长江沿线受灾民众同在”。

但是，部分网友似乎对这一句话的慰问并不领情，开始在其微博下留言进行“逼捐”。有的表达比较委婉，留言“捐点吧，库老板”；有的直言“不捐款说什么空话”；还有的搬出了“不捐不是地球人”的言论。

而实际上，在库克发布微博之前，中国扶贫基金会便已通过微博宣布苹果公司已经捐款700万元，用于支持中国长江中下游遭受洪涝地区紧急救灾。而苹果公司也是此次洪涝灾害救援中第一家向中国扶贫基金会捐款的美国公司。

不仅是库克，马云也曾遭遇过“逼捐”。

去年8月12日天津塘沽爆炸事件发生以后，马云的微博被清一色的“逼捐款”留言所覆盖。其中不乏“你那么有钱为什么不给天津捐款”，“首富就应该捐1个亿”，“你捐了就等于我捐了”，“你不捐款，我再也不淘宝了”，“总裁是时候出来捐款了，是时候彰显财大气粗咯，是时候炫富了”等等强迫性质的捐款留言。

对此，马云在事后回应中表示，捐款这个事情捐是对的，不捐也有理由，但是自己不捐，让别人也不捐那是不对的。

确实，不管一个人多有钱，旁人都没有权利要求他一定要从事慈善事业。且不论库克已经捐了700万，即便他没捐，那也是其个人行为，财富并不是慈善与否的凭证，有钱人可以不慈善，没钱的人也可以慈善。

对于这些“逼捐者”，有人会反问，你在要求别人捐款的同时，自己捐了吗？在这个问题下，有些“逼捐者”可能会自感理亏，但也存在一些人会理直气壮指出：“我又没有那么多钱，我捐的一点有什么用？”

有专业人士指出，这种心理是人们在道德绑架时，经常会出现的一种“混逻辑”，即把责任加给别人，谈及自己时，总提及特殊性。他们认为企业大佬必须捐款，因为他们是富人；而我不必捐款，因为我是穷人。潜移默化间，慈善就被认定为是有钱人做的事，而实际上，这是一种责任的推卸，也是一种对有钱人和慈善事业的扭曲理解。

马云日前在公益大会上便表示，这个世界的穷，救不完；这世界的病，也治不光。世界任何地方任何灾区不会因为捐助的一点钱而发生变化，捐钱发生最大变化的是你自己，而你发生了变化，世界才有可能发生变化。

慈善下的质疑

除了直接捐款，利用慈善基金会，将慈善事业规范化、长期化，是国外比较常见的经验。近几年，随着中国企业的不断壮大，公益慈善基金会的形式在国内也流行起来。

今年4月，马化腾宣布将捐出一亿股腾讯股票，并注入正在筹建中的公益慈善基金，用于支持在中国内地为主的医疗、教育、环保等公益慈善项目以及全球前沿科技和基础学科的探索。

但是，随即有人提出质疑，认为马化腾此举有避税的嫌疑。马化腾随后向媒体回应称，这一次成立的公益慈善基金将是不可撤销、不可取回、经正规申请认可的公益慈善基金，跟个人税务安排无关。

无独有偶，去年12月Facebook创始人扎克伯格及其妻子宣布捐出他们所持99%的Facebook股份用于慈善事业时，也被当地媒体质疑为借捐款逃避高额税务。

扎克伯格当时对这些质疑进行了回应，其指出：“新设的机构是有限责任公司，而非传统基金的模式，所以在将股票转移时不会享受税收优惠，但却能够更加灵活高效地执行我们的使命。”

据业内人士分析，“扎克伯格新设的有限责任公司，严格意义上来说它不能定义为是慈善。”因为即便按照扎克伯格所承诺，股票资产注入名下的有限责任公司，这也只是将钱从左边口袋放到右边口袋，除非这笔钱花在了慈善领域，否则和慈善便没有什么关系；而传统慈善捐赠在资金进入基金会那一刻，资金和捐赠者就切断了所有权关系。

为何会有避税的质疑，这要从美国的税收政策说起。美国不鼓励从父辈继承巨额遗产不劳而获的做法，因此美国的遗产税高得吓人，2015年的遗产税达到40%；然后美国对投资收入也征收很高的资产增值税，税率从15%到35%不等，比如若卖掉自己手里长期持有的股票，需要缴纳15%的资产增值税。

不过，美国对于慈善有一套税收减免政策。如果将财产捐给自己的慈善基金会，便可免除第一次卖股票的资产增值税、遗产税和每年的投资增值税。

可以说，做慈善减免税收的制度，是美国慈善事业发展的催化剂。据统计，在过去40年中，美国人年均慈善捐款占美国国内生产总值的1.8%，而在最富有的美国人中，3/4拥有自己的基金会。

在美国这种高额税收的背景下，企业通过做慈善来减免部分税费，同时还能获得社会声誉，实际上是多赢的举措。但回到中国来看，国内没有像美国一样的高额遗产税，且在慈善事业上并没有过多税收优惠，所以国内企业家通过捐赠来达到避税目的的说法还不够准确。

根据我国《企业所得税法》和《个人所得税法》的相关规定，企业和个人发生的公益性捐赠支出，在一定比例内准予在计算应纳税所得额时扣除，我国现行的扣除比例分别为企业利润的12%，以及个人应纳税所得额的30%。

按照这个规定，如果以企业的形式分年捐赠，则是可以分年进行税前抵扣，如果一次性捐赠的话只能用到当年的12%额度，超出的部分需要纳税。因此，国内企业在捐款时若想多抵减一些税收，可能会选择分批次捐赠的方式。

中国慈善路还很长

相对于国外的慈善发展，中国还有很长的路要走，首先要改变的是人们对慈善的认知。

在慈善这个事情上，聊胜于无。马云说要唤醒每个人内心的善良，这点其实很重要。因为当人人都参与公益，理解公益时，”逼捐”的现象就不会存在，更不会去攀比、对比别人捐了多少。

对于企业家而言，社会舆论监督是必要的，但是要理性。企业大佬经营企业时，在企业文化、管理思路上都有其一定的独特性，所以在做慈善时自然也与他人不尽相同。查阅近几年的中国慈善榜单，会发现很多企业家一直在默默无闻的做慈善，他们选择低调，并享受其中。

所以不管是高调还是低调，也无论捐赠的多少，只要他们愿意做慈善，我们都应该去赞扬，这样才会有更多企业家加入慈善事业中来。

另外需要完善慈善制度，让慈善工作在健康的环境下运作。近年来中国慈善事业蓬勃发展，但仍然暴露出诸多问题和疑惑，这与法律监管的缺失不无关系。

好在经过多年的努力，中国首部《慈善法》将于今年9月1日开始实行。慈善法的总则中明确规范了慈善活动，保护了慈善组织、捐赠人、志愿者、受益人等慈善活动参与者的合法权益。

“公益的心态，商业的手法”，这是马云近年来在谈论公益时反复提及的一句话，不过这句话更适用于企业家们，对于普通民众来说，“公益的心”足矣。