The Era of "Taxation Over Donations" Becoming a Trend: The Debate on Ultra-Wealthy Philanthropy - The "Dynamic" Where MacKenzie Scott is Praised and Bezos is Easily Criticized

The Era of "Taxation Over Donations" Becoming a Trend: The Debate on Ultra-Wealthy Philanthropy - The "Dynamic" Where MacKenzie Scott is Praised and Bezos is Easily Criticized

In the United States, "billionaire philanthropy" is once again fueling controversy. The trigger is the visualization of the donation amounts and "percentage of assets" from the ultra-wealthy, making it easier to consume who is giving back to society and how much, in a ranking-like manner. Particularly, whenever Jeff Bezos's name comes up, criticism tends to rise before praise.


1) A World That Cannot Be Explained by "Donation Amount" Alone

First, as a premise, the "absolute amount" of donations is on a different scale. For example, in Forbes' compilation of philanthropic billionaires, Warren Buffett is treated as an overwhelming presence due to his outstanding lifetime donations.

 
On the other hand, what heats up discussions on social media is the relative indicator of "what percentage of assets" rather than the absolute amount. In a world where assets expand on the scale of tens of trillions of yen, even donating billions of dollars can seem small as a "percentage." This quickly shifts the topic to a moral trial, with feelings like "You have that much, and that's all?" easily arising.


2) The Gaze on Bezos: Why It Seems "Less" Even When It Increases

According to Forbes' estimates, Bezos's lifetime donations are about $4.1 billion, which is 1.6% of his assets, and the "smallness of the ratio" tends to attract attention.
What is important here is not so much the presence or absence of Bezos's personal goodwill, but rather the "design that makes it easy to catch fire when measured by ratio." As Amazon stock rises and his assets grow, even if donations increase, the denominator becomes even larger. As a result, it leaves an impression of "not catching up," which becomes a headline for criticism.


Reactions on social media are generally divided into three.

  • Supporters: "The amount is indeed huge. Donations are at the donor's discretion. If support reaches those in need as a result, that's good."

  • Skeptics: "Donations are for tax benefits or image strategy. The wealthy decide the priorities of social issues."

  • Tax Advocates: "Rather than donations, we should first strengthen a system that ensures fair tax payments."
    This structure has existed for a long time, but in recent years, "donation = good story" doesn't suffice, and it quickly connects to discussions of influence, transparency, and tax systems.

3) "Donations That Are Easily Praised" and "Donations That Are Easily Suspected"

In contrast, Bezos's ex-wife, MacKenzie Scott, is often praised for her style of distributing large sums in a relatively unrestricted manner over a short period. In fact, it has been reported that she has contributed over $19 billion to more than 2,000 organizations in the few years following her divorce, and the fact that it imposes little operational burden on the recipients is also spoken of favorably.

 
On social media, it is often treated as an "ideal donation" in contexts like "leaving it to the field," "having a sense of speed," and "not wielding power."


On the other hand, there are patterns where large donations are "easily suspected." When associations are made with concentration in specific fields, naming that leads to brand enhancement, or indirect influence on policy, the scent of "social control" outweighs "social contribution."


This is more a reflection of modern public opinion being sensitive to "concentration of power" than the merits or demerits of the donation itself.


4) Why "Pledges to Donate" Are Criticized

Adding more fuel to the fire is the existence of symbolic pledges like "billionaires donating half." The Giving Pledge is often criticized for the difficulty in verifying achievement status, the tendency to postpone donation timing, and the opacity through foundations or DAFs (Donor-Advised Funds).

 
On social media, suspicions like "‘someday donate’ is a get-out-of-jail-free card" or "is it set with inheritance and tax-saving designs?" are discussed together.


5) Yet There Is Also the Reality That "Donations Reach"

However, what makes this discussion difficult is that even if we dismiss it as "donations are hypocritical and meaningless," there are places in reality that are saved. There are many examples where large donations directly impact medicine, research, and education, and even in announcement-based rankings, funds on the scale of tens of billions of dollars move annually.
Even on social media, it's not all criticism. Practical voices remain strong, saying, "Tax reform is necessary, but funds needed today are needed today," and "If donations are criticized too much, support will shrink."


6) Conclusion in the Age of Social Media: Expectations for "Donations" Have Changed

Ultimately, the current contention is not just about "donated/did not donate."

  • When will that money move

  • Is it easy to use for the recipient

  • Is the decision-making transparent?

  • Can it be said to be fair in conjunction with the tax system

  • Even if wealth remains concentrated, is it justified by donations


These questions collectively project onto symbolic figures like Bezos. As Forbes' numbers indicate, even if the donation amount increases, the narrative of "percentage" is hard to change.

 
And whether "percentage" is justice also becomes an endless debate on social media.


What we should take from this discussion is not the pleasure of deciding someone as a saint or villain, but the coexistence of "designing a society that doesn't rely solely on donations" and "maximizing the effects of donations through transparency." Donations are not a panacea. However, it is also a fact that they move society on an undeniable scale.


Source URL


Related Articles