The China Daily runs a story and an opinion piece today on the relatively low levels of philanthropic giving in China.  In an odd sort of way, the opinion piece tries to argue that there is a grounding in Chinese tradition for charitable giving but, then, it undermines this point by turning to tax policy for a possible solution.  Here is the interpretation of "tradition:" 

    We do have the tradition of the rich being philanthropic. It was a frequent
occurrence in ancient times for local rich families to offer free food to
refugees on the occasion of famine or other natural disasters. Some rich
families would allow anyone who passed by to enjoy a free meal, or would give
out money on some traditional festivals or on birthdays.

    We used to believe that the more charitable we were, the more credit we would
accumulate for the next world.

    It is probably because very few believe in the existence of an afterlife that
the idea of earning credit does not seem to be a concern for many. Maximum
enjoyment of material life in this world has eroded the traditional virtue of
always having a heart for the poor and the weak.

     Interestingly, the "tradition" they are invoking here is Buddhist – with its notion of reincarnation – which is then set aside because modern Chinese do not believe in an afterlife.  Why didn’t the writers reach for a Confucian/Mencian morality (which seems all the vogue these days among Communist Party ideologists), which might more readily relate to a modern, secular context?  Perhaps because a Confucian/Mencian morality is just too hard to live up to in China or anywhere else.

     Confucius and Mencius would absolutely agree that the rich should give generously to the poor.  But they would go much farther: such "giving" should not be a post hoc reaction to high levels of economic inequality; rather, economic policy should be designed to discourage large profits going to particular individuals in the first place.  And that goes very much against the "to get rich is glorious" obsession of the contemporary PRC. 

    I have mentioned here before how Confucius rejects profit-seeking motives.  Material incentives are not a means to the moral life for the Venerable Sage.  Likewise, Mencius believes that economic equality – or, at least, sufficient provision of the needs of all persons – is the basis of a good society:

     When every five acre farm has mulberry trees around the farmhouse, people wear silk at fifty.  And when the proper seasons of chickens and pigs and dogs are not neglected, people eat meat at seventy.  When hundred-acre farms never violate their proper seasons, even large families don’t go hungry.  Pay close attention to the teaching in village schools, and extend it to the child’s family responsibilities – then, when their silver hair glistens, people won’t be out on roads and paths hauling heavy loads.  Our black-haired people free of hunger and cold, wearing silk and eating meat at seventy – there have never been such times without a true emperor. (6; 17).

    In other words, if economic policy is geared toward providing for people’s basic needs, charitable giving will not be necessary.  But this would, in practice, require regulation of economic activity to make sure everyone had the modern equivalent of mulberry trees and chickens (I know, the bird flu thing ruins the chickens idea…).

     But the China Daily will not go that far (maybe the Mencian ideal is just too "socialist" for the PRC!).  Instead, the writers are looking for marginal changes in the tax code to encourage philanthropy:

     Moreover, a sound system is badly needed to guarantee that donors do not
suffer losses just because they donate to charity. The current tax law
stipulates that if an enterprise makes a donation, the tax deductible amount of
its corporate income is within 3 per cent. Individual donors, however, enjoy a
30 per cent tax deductible policy.

     That means a firm does not enjoy any further tax benefits for donations
exceeding 3 per cent of their taxed income. Some argue that the current tax rule
does not encourage giving.

    A change in the corporate tax code to increase charitable deductions would likely be a good thing, resulting in more charitable giving.  But it does not come anywhere close to a Confucian/Mencian standard.  That strand of Chinese tradition would ask: why should we give to the poor?  And their answer would not be that we are receiving more material benefits for ourselves, but that we owe it to society at large to contribute to justice for all.