【紐約客】扎克伯格與慈善資本主義 | 取經號

美國「土豪」們的慈善捐贈對我們來說早已屢見不鮮，這不，馬克·扎克伯格既比爾·蓋茨、沃倫·巴菲特等一眾億萬富翁之後仍然將其家產捐給慈善機構，而不是讓他剛出生的女兒繼承。美國富豪們為何紛紛選擇這樣的方式？是真的因為慈善，還是別有用心？

正文

December 2, 2015

Mark Zuckerberg and the Rise of Philanthrocapitalism

馬克·扎克伯格和慈善資本主義的興起

By John Cassidy

Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan』s decision to donate nearly all of their Facebook stock to philanthropic causes raises questions about influence, tax dodges, and democracy.

Credit Photograph by Andrew Harrer / Bloomberg via Getty

The announcement by Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, that, during their lifetimes, they will donate to philanthropic causes roughly ninety-nine per cent of their Facebook stock, which is currently valued at close to forty-five billion dollars, has already prompted a lot of comment, much of it positive. That is understandable. The fact that Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and a number of other billionaires are pledging their fortunes to charity rather than seeking to pass them down to their descendants is already having an impact.

馬克·扎克伯格日前宣布，他和妻子普麗西拉·陳死後將捐出其家庭所持有「臉書」股份的99%用於慈善事業，目前這約合市值450億美元。消息一出，便引來諸多反響，其中絕大部分是正面的。這是可以理解的。事實上，馬克·扎克伯格、比爾·蓋茨、沃倫·巴菲特等一眾億萬富翁做出將其家產捐給慈善機構，而非讓後代繼承家業的承諾早已引起軒然大波。

Last year, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which was founded in 2000, dispensed almost four billion dollars in grants. A big slug of this money went toward fighting diseases like H.I.V., malaria, polio, and tuberculosis, which kill millions of people in poor countries. Zuckerberg and Chan have also already donated hundreds of millions of dollars to various causes, including eradicating the Ebola virus. In their latest announcement, which they presented as an open letter to their newborn daughter, on Zuckerberg』s Facebook page, they said that the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, the new philanthropic organization that they are setting up, would focus on 「advancing human potential and promoting equality.」

去年，於2000年設立的比爾和梅琳達·蓋茨基金會累計發放資助金額已達40億美元，其中絕大多數用於對抗艾滋病、瘧疾、小兒麻痹症和肺結核等疾病上，這些疾病在貧困國家已經奪去了數百萬人的生命。扎克伯格和陳也在包括根除埃博拉疫情上各類慈善事業中捐出數億美元，。他們日前在臉書上發表了給剛出生女兒的公開信，在信中，他們正式做出了上述聲明，同時，他們還提到由陳提議、目前正在成立過程中的新慈善組織將關注「促進人類潛能和平等」這一問題。

It』s not just the size of the donations that the wealthy are making that demands attention, though. Charitable giving on this scale makes modern capitalism, with all of its inequalities and injustices, seem somewhat more defensible. Having created hugely successful companies that have generated almost unimaginable wealth, Zuckerberg, Gates, and Buffett are sending a powerful message to Wall Street hedge-fund managers, Russian oligarchs, European industrialists, Arab oil sheiks, and anybody else who has accumulated a vast fortune: 「From those to whom much is given, much is expected.」

富人在捐款上的慷慨，不是吸引人眼球的唯一原因。如此大規模的慈善，讓造就了無數不平等和不公平現象的現代資本主義，更有了存在的理由。建立起了取得巨大成功、累計驚人財富公司的扎克伯格、蓋茨和巴菲特等人，向華爾街對沖基金經理人、俄羅斯金融寡頭、歐洲實業家、阿拉伯石油巨頭等坐擁無數財富的人傳達了一個有力的信息：「天助者，當助人。」

Speaking at Harvard in 2007, Gates attributed this quotation to his dying mother. (A slightly different version of it appears in St. Luke』s gospel.) In 2010, Gates and Buffett challenged fellow members of the ultra-rich club to give away at least half of their wealth. Since then, more than a hundred billionaires have signed the 「Giving Pledge.」 Some of these mega-donors, such as Buffett, are content to let others direct their donations. (In 2006, he signed over much of his fortune to the Gates Foundation.) Increasingly, however, wealthy people are setting up their own philanthropic organizations and pursuing their own causes—a phenomenon that has been called 「philanthrocapitalism.」

2007年在哈佛演講時，蓋茨提到了他去世母親曾說過的這句話。（路加福音中也有類似的一句話。）2010年，蓋茨和巴菲特倡議全美的巨富們起碼捐出其一半財產。自那以後，100多名億萬富翁都簽署了「捐贈誓言」。其中一些大捐贈者，比如巴菲特，願意讓他人來決定捐款去向。（2006年，他簽署同意將其大部分財富捐給蓋茨基金會的承諾書。）但更多的富人選擇建立自己的慈善組織、追求自己的慈善事業。這一現象被稱之為「慈善資本主義」。

That is the positive side. It is also worth noting, however, that all of this charitable giving comes at a cost to the taxpayer and, arguably, to the broader democratic process. If Zuckerberg and Chan were to cash in their Facebook stock, rather than setting it aside for charity, they would have to pay capital-gains tax on the proceeds, money that could be used to fund government programs. If they willed their wealth to their descendants, then sizable estate taxes would become due on their deaths. By making charitable donations in the form of stock, they, and their heirs, will escape both of these levies.

這是積極的一面。但這種慈善捐贈對稅收乃至更廣泛的民主進程來說，也是毫無進益的。如果扎克伯格和陳套現他們在臉書的股票，而不是用於慈善，那他們就必須為其繳納資本利得稅，所得稅款將用於資助政府項目。如果他們將資產遺贈給後代，那他們死後國家會徵收巨額的遺產稅。但選擇將股份捐出，他們及其後代就能不必繳納這兩種稅。

That』s not all. As Robert Wood, a tax lawyer and contributor to Forbes.com, pointed out on Tuesday: 「This generosity is also incredibly tax efficient.」 Under the federal tax code, Zuckerberg and Chan will receive credits equal to the market value of their Facebook stock on the day they donate it to a new charitable organization they are setting up. In subsequent years, they will be able to roll over some of these credits to shelter income that they haven』t earned yet, such as Zuckerberg』s salary from Facebook and dividend payments generated by the stock he still owns. (Right now, Facebook doesn』t pay any dividends.) While such deductions are capped, the sums involved can still be large.

不僅如此。稅務律師、福布斯供稿人羅伯特·伍德（Robert Wood）周二指出：「這種慷慨非常省稅。」按照美國現行稅法，扎克伯格和陳一旦把其臉書股份捐給他們設立的新慈善組織，就能獲得相當於股份市價的稅收抵免。在將來，他們就能用這些抵免額來抵免他們還未賺取的收入，比如臉書給扎克伯格發的工資和他仍持有股份的分紅（目前，臉書還沒有開始分紅）。儘管這種抵免有上限，但總額仍然很驚人。

The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative will be organized as a limited-liability corporation, rather than as a traditional charity. As far as taxes go, this doesn』t necessarily make much difference. In a post for Fast Company, Marcus Baram pointed out that philanthropic L.L.C.s are increasingly common. So long as they are devoted to charitable works and owned by a family foundation, they can obtain tax-exempt status. They also have more flexibility in how they can invest their endowments than regular charities, which may make a difference in how the new organization operates. But that won』t affect the U.S. Treasury.

陳-扎克伯格慈善項目將採用有限責任公司、而非傳統慈善機構的形式。在納稅的問題上，兩者卻並沒有什麼不同。Marcus Baram在快公司的一個帖子中指出，慈善性質的有限責任公司越來越普遍。只要他們致力於慈善事業，並從屬於家族基金會，他們就能免稅。較之常規慈善組織，他們在投資其捐贈基金時有更大的靈活性，這可能使這種新型機構的運行方式有所不同。但這不會影響到美國財政部。

If what Zuckerberg is doing were an isolated example, it wouldn』t matter much for over-all tax revenues. But the practice is spreading at a time when the distribution of wealth is getting ever more lopsided, which means the actions of a small number of very rich people can have a bigger impact. In 2012, according to a recent study by the economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, the richest 0.01 per cent of American households—there are only about sixteen thousand of them—owned 11.2 per cent of all the wealth in the country, which is the highest share since 1916. (The richest 0.1 per cent of households owned twenty-two per cent of the total, which is more than the bottom ninety per cent of households combined.)

如果扎克伯格是個例，對稅收大局是沒有影響的。但在社會財富分配越來越不均的情況下，這一現象正在變得普遍，這意味著，小部分大富翁的行為會有巨大的影響力。經濟學家伊曼紐爾·賽斯 （Emmauel Saez）和加布里埃爾·祖克曼(Gabriel Zucman)的一項研究發現，佔美國0.01%的巨富人口（約16，000人）擁有全國11.2%的財富，1916年以來最高的比例。（最富的0.1%人口擁有22%的財富，比社會底層90%的人口所擁有的財富加起來還要多。）

By transferring almost all of their fortunes to philanthropic organizations, billionaires like Zuckerberg and Gates are placing some very large chunks of wealth permanently outside the reaches of the Internal Revenue Service. As tax-exempt entities, these charitable enterprises won』t face any liabilities when they eventually sell the stock they receive. That means the country』s tax base shrinks. As yet, I haven』t seen any estimates of the over-all cost to the Treasury, but it』s an issue that can』t be avoided. And it raises the broader question, which the economists Thomas Piketty and Anthony Atkinson, among others, have raised, of whether we need a more comprehensive tax on wealth.

通過把幾乎所有的財富轉移到慈善組織名下，扎克伯格和蓋茨等億萬富翁成功將絕大部分財富放到美國國稅局觸手之外。這些慈善企業作為免稅實體，最終出售他們所獲得的股份捐贈時，也不會承擔任何稅收。這意味著美國的稅收基數縮減了。雖然迄今為止，筆者並沒有看到這對國家財富造成損失的估計，但損失是不可避免的。這還引起了一個更大的問題，即托馬斯·皮凱蒂(Thomas Piketty)和安東尼 阿特金森（Anthony Atkinson）等經濟學家提出的，我們是否需要一個更加全面的財產稅體系？

Arguably, there is another issue at stake, too: democracy.

還有另外一個問題——民主。

Although organizations like the Gates Foundation portray themselves as apolitical, nonpartisan entities, they aren』t completely removed from politics. Far from it. The Gates Foundation, for example, has been a big financial supporter of charter schools, standardized testing, and the Common Core. (It has also given some money to public schools.) Zuckerberg, too, has also provided a lot of money to charter schools. They featured prominently in his costly and controversial effort to reform the public-school system in Newark, New Jersey, which Dale Russakoff wrote about in the magazine last year. In the letter posted on Facebook, Zuckerberg signalled that he isn』t done with such efforts. 「We must participate in policy and advocacy to shape debates,」 the letter said. 「Many institutions are unwilling to do this, but progress must be supported by movements to be sustainable.」

儘管蓋茨基金會等組織都把自己描述為非政治性、無黨派實體，但他們也不能完全免於政治的影響。事實也遠非如此。比如，蓋茨基金會一直是教會學校、標準化測試和全美教育標準（common core）的有利資助支持者。（其也為公立學校出資不少。）扎克伯格對教會學校的資助也不少。Dale Russakoff去年在雜誌中就寫道，最突出的例子就是扎克伯格曾為改革新澤西州紐瓦克市（Newark）的公立學校制度付出良多，且引發了諸多爭議。在臉書上，扎克伯格表示他還會繼續努力。在信中，他說道：「我們必須參與到政策和遊說當中，來創造出討論的機會。許多組織不願這麼做，但只有持久的運動才能帶來進步。」

My intention, here, isn』t to enter the education debate. It is simply to point out what should be obvious: people like Zuckerberg and Gates, by virtue of their philanthropic efforts, can have a much bigger say in determining policy outcomes than ordinary citizens can. (As Matthew Yglesias pointed out on Vox, one of the advantages of registering the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative as an L.L.C. is that it can spend money on political ads.) The more money billionaires give to their charitable foundations, which in most cases remain under their personal control, the more influence they will accumulate. And relatively speaking, anyway, the less influence everybody else will have.

筆者的意圖並非是加入到關於教育的討論中，而僅僅是指出一個明顯的事實：比起普通公民，扎克伯格和蓋茨等人的慈善行為對政策結果有更大的影響力。（就像Matthew Yglesias在vox中指出的那樣，把陳-扎克伯格慈善項目註冊為有限責任公司的好處之一，就是能資助政治性廣告。）在大多數情況下，慈善組織仍然是由億萬富翁私人掌控，因此他們出錢越多，影響力就越大。相對而言，其他個人的影響力就越小了。

Some Americans—not all of them disciples of Ayn Rand—might say that this is a good thing. I have already cited some of the Gates Foundation』s good works. Isn』t Michael Bloomberg, with his efforts to reform gun laws, promoting the public interest? Isn』t George Soros, through his donations to civil-rights organizations, lining up on the side of the angels? In these two instances, my own answers would be yes and yes; but the broader point stands. The divide between philanthropy and politics is already fuzzy. As the 「philanthrocapitalism」 movement gets bigger, this line will be increasingly hard to discern.

一些美國人——不僅僅是艾茵·蘭德（ Ayn Rand）的信徒——可能會覺得這是一件好事。關於蓋茨基金會的善舉，前文已經提過。另外，邁克爾·布隆伯格通過其在改革槍支法方面的努力，不也促進了公眾利益嗎？喬治·索羅斯通過對民權組織的捐款，不也選擇和天使站在了一邊嗎？對於前述兩例的價值，筆者再同意不為過。但慈善背後的其它目的，也不得不考量。慈善和政治的界限本就模糊。隨著「慈善資本主義」運動的發展，這一邊界會變得更加模糊。

So by all means, let us praise Zuckerberg and Chan for their generosity. And let us also salute Gates, who started the trend. But contrary to the old saying, this is one gift horse we should look closely in the mouth.

不管怎麼樣，對慷慨的扎克伯格和陳，讓我們致以讚賞；對開始這一趨勢的蓋茨，讓我們致以敬意。但和諺語不同的是，這種好心，我們得仔細看看是不是驢肝肺。

外媒簡介

《紐約客》（The New Yorker），也譯作《紐約人》，是一份美國知識、文藝類的綜合雜誌，內容覆蓋新聞報道、文藝評論、散文、漫畫、詩歌、小說，以及紐約文化生活動向等。《紐約客》現由康得納斯出版公司出版。《紐約客》不是完全的新聞雜誌，然而它對美國和國際政治、社會重大事件的深度報道是其特色之一。他一方面保持了輕鬆幽默的主題風格，另一方面它也很快成為嚴肅新聞報道和文學創作的一處顯要出版窗口。

學習筆記

① Philanthrocapitalism：

這個詞由」philanthropic」( n. 博愛；慈善；樂善好施) （也有可能是 」philanthropist」和」capitalism」合併而來，可以翻譯成「慈善資本主義」。

② malaria [u]n. 瘧疾

polio [u]n. 脊椎灰質炎；小兒麻痹症

tuberculosis [u]n. 結核病

③ levy

n. an extra amount of money that has to be paid, especially as a tax to the government

指徵收額，尤指稅款

a levy on oil imports

對石油徵收的稅款

【辨析】

duty, customs, tariff, levy, excise

以上各詞均指品稅。

excise 指國內貨品稅

customs 指進口貨品稅

tariff 指常為國內工業免遭廉價進口商品的衝擊，對進出口商品徵收的關稅

duty 較籠統，指進出口貨品稅或國內貨品稅均可

levy 在這組詞中最籠統，可指任何種類的稅或收費

④ capital-gains tax

資本利得稅，英文簡稱CGT, 是對資本利得（低買高賣資本所獲收益）徵稅。常見的資本利得稅如買賣股票，債券，貴金屬和房地產等所獲得的收益。並不是所有國家都徵收資本利得稅。

⑤ cap

1. [常用被動態] ~ sth (with sth) to cover the top or end of sth with sth 用......覆蓋頂部（端部）

eg: snow-capped mountains

頂端積雪的群山

2. [常用被動態] ~ to limit the amount of money that can be charged for sth or spent on sth 限制收支（或支出）

eg: a capped mortgage

限額按揭

3. to say or do sth that is funnier, more impressive, etc . than sth that has been said or done before 勝過；超過；比......更......

eg: What an amazing story! Can anyone cap that?

這真是個精彩的故事！還有人能講得更精彩嗎？

（真泥煤能扯！還有人蓋過它嘛？ps: 小編亂入版）

⑥ endowment

[c,u] n. 捐款；捐贈；資助

【擴展】 endow

v. （向學校等機構）捐錢，捐贈，資助

【片語】

be endowed with sth

天生賦有，生來具有（某種品質、品性行）

eg: She was endowed with intelligence and wit.

她天資聰穎。

⑦ portray

portray sb/sth as 將......描寫成；給人以某種印象；表現

eg: Throughout the trial, he portrayed himself as the victim.

在審訊過程中，他將自己說成是受害者。

⑧ apolitical

adj. not connected with political party與政黨無關的

翻譯：楊雪

校對&筆記：毛燏

策劃：胡雅琳

我們選取來自世界頂級英文媒體的熱點內容，精心翻譯，並整理出學習筆記。

取經號是你在外語外媒學習之路上的忠實伴侶，給你帶來最棒的學習體驗。

取經路上，你不再一個人。

微信號:JTWest

Attention

這裡每周發布《經濟學人》原版PDF，音頻；更有取經號資深譯者坐陣；歡迎讀者來探討翻譯問題，分享讀譯心得~

加入方式：

QQ群號：193503512

微信群：添加取經號小編微信好友，拉你入群~

小編の微信號：moshedayan1915