Some very rich people say they want to give money to help others. But many do not give the money they promised.

有些非常富有的人表示想捐款幫助他人。但許多人並沒有捐出他們承諾的款項。

In 2010, some rich people started the Giving Pledge. They promised to give their money away. But a study shows they did not do this. Many of these people became even richer. They put money in their own private groups to keep control.

在 2010 年，一些富豪發起了「捐贈誓言」。他們承諾將財產捐出。但研究顯示他們並沒有這麼做。其中許多人反而變得更加富有。他們將資金放入自己的私人基金以維持控制權。

Now, a new group of people is getting the money. Many women and young people will get a lot of money by 2048. These people give money differently. For example, MacKenzie Scott gives money quickly. She does not tell the groups how to spend it.

現在，一群新的人開始獲得這些財富。到 2048 年，許多女性和年輕人將繼承大量金錢。這些人的捐款方式有所不同。例如，MacKenzie Scott 捐款速度很快，且她不會要求團體說明如何使用資金。

Some people think these promises are not enough. They say the government should make new taxes. They want rich people to be more open about their money. They believe taxes help more than promises.

有些人認為這些承諾並不充足。他們表示政府應該制定新稅制。他們希望富豪對其財富更加透明。他們相信徵稅比承諾更能提供幫助。

Old rich people keep their money. Young rich people want to give money faster to help the world.

老一代的富豪保留著財富，而年輕一代的富豪則希望更快地捐款以幫助世界。

Current discussions about the world's wealthiest people focus on the difference between what is expected of them in terms of charity and how they actually give away their money.

目前關於全球最富有人士的討論，集中在社會對其慈善期望與其實際捐贈方式之間的差異。

The effectiveness of the Giving Pledge, started in 2010, has been questioned by the Institute for Policy Studies. Their analysis shows that many participants have failed to meet their voluntary promises. For example, a group of 32 original signers saw their total wealth grow by 283%, yet only one couple actually gave away the amount they promised. The study emphasizes that using private foundations allows donors to keep control of their money, as 80% of donations go to these organizations. Furthermore, the average annual payment rate of 9.2% is considered too low compared to the tax breaks the public provides.

政策研究學院（Institute for Policy Studies）質疑 2010 年啟動的「捐贈誓言」（Giving Pledge）之有效性。其分析顯示，許多參與者未能履行其自願承諾。例如，一組 32 名最初的簽署者其總財富增長了 283%，然而僅有一對夫婦實際捐出了他們承諾的金額。研究強調，使用私人基金會使捐贈者能維持對資金的控制，因為 80% 的捐款流向這些組織。此外，年平均支付率 9.2% 與公眾提供的稅務減免相比，被認為過低。

On the other hand, a change in how wealth is managed is appearing as money passes to a new generation. Experts predict that about $124 trillion will be transferred by 2048, with women expected to inherit 56% of this amount. This shift is leading to 'trust-based philanthropy,' such as MacKenzie Scott's decision to give $26 billion in grants without strict rules. This method prioritizes solutions led by the community rather than the donor. While older donors often see charity as a way to leave a long-term legacy, younger heirs are calling for money to be spent faster to fix social inequalities.

另一方面，隨著財富傳遞給新一代，財富管理方式正出現變化。專家預測，到 2048 年將有約 124 兆美元被轉移，其中預計 56% 將由女性繼承。這種轉變正導致「信任導向的慈善」（trust-based philanthropy），例如 MacKenzie Scott 決定捐贈 260 億美元的撥款且不設嚴格限制。此方法優先考慮由社區主導而非由捐贈者主導的解決方案。年長捐贈者通常將慈善視為留下長期遺產的方式，而年輕繼承者則呼籲加快資金使用速度以解決社會不平等問題。

From a policy point of view, critics argue that voluntary giving is not enough. The Institute for Policy Studies suggests that official changes, such as wealth taxes and more transparency for donor funds, would be more effective than relying on the choices of the rich. This shows a growing tension between the old tradition of wealthy generosity and the modern reality of extreme wealth concentration.

從政策角度來看，批評者認為自願捐贈是不夠的。政策研究學院建議，採取正式的變革，如財富稅以及提高捐贈基金的透明度，會比依賴富人的選擇更有效。這顯示了富豪慷慨的舊傳統與極端財富集中的現代現實之間，緊張關係日益增加。

The world of charity is currently defined by a conflict between slow voluntary promises and a new, faster model of giving driven by a change in generations.

目前的慈善世界，定義在於緩慢的自願承諾與由世代更替所驅動的新型快速捐贈模式之間的衝突。

Current discourse regarding ultra-high-net-worth individuals focuses on the divergence between historical philanthropic expectations and the actual implementation of voluntary wealth transfers.

目前關於超高淨值人士的討論，焦點在於歷史上對慈善的期望與實際執行自願性財富轉移之間的分歧。

The institutional efficacy of the Giving Pledge, established in 2010, has been scrutinized by the Institute for Policy Studies. Analysis indicates a systemic failure in the fulfillment of these voluntary commitments; specifically, a cohort of 32 original signers experienced a collective wealth increase of 283% since inception, with only one couple achieving the pledged redistribution. The study posits that the utilization of private foundations facilitates a retention of control, as 80% of contributions are directed toward these entities. Furthermore, the median annual payout rate of 9.2% is characterized as insufficient relative to the upfront tax subsidies provided by the public.

政策研究學院（Institute for Policy Studies）審視了 2010 年成立的「捐贈誓言」（Giving Pledge）的制度成效。分析指出，這些自願性承諾在履行上存在系統性失敗；具體而言，在最初簽署的 32 人中，其財富自成立以來集體增加了 283%，僅有一對夫婦實現了承諾的重新分配。研究認為，利用私人基金會方便了捐贈者維持控制權，因為 80% 的捐款被導向這些實體。此外，每年 9.2% 的中位支付率，相對於公眾提供的前期稅務補貼而言，被視為不足。

Conversely, a generational transition in wealth management is emerging. Projections suggest a transfer of approximately $124 trillion by 2048, with women expected to inherit 56% of this sum. This demographic shift is associated with a transition toward 'trust-based philanthropy,' exemplified by MacKenzie Scott's distribution of $26 billion in unrestricted grants. This methodology prioritizes community-led solutions over donor-imposed restrictions. While the older generation often views philanthropy as a long-term legacy project, younger heirs are increasingly advocating for the accelerated deployment of capital to address systemic inequalities.

相反地，財富管理正出現世代交替。預測顯示到 2048 年將有約 124 兆美元的財富轉移，其中女性預計將繼承 56%。這種人口結構的轉變與「基於信任的慈善」（trust-based philanthropy）趨勢相關，例如 MacKenzie Scott 分配了 260 億美元的無限制撥款。這種方法優先考慮社區主導的解決方案，而非捐贈者強加的限制。年長一代通常將慈善視為長期的遺產工程，而年輕繼承人則日益主張加速部署資本，以解決系統性不平等問題。

From a policy perspective, critics argue that voluntary mechanisms are inadequate. The Institute for Policy Studies suggests that structural interventions, such as the implementation of wealth taxes and increased transparency regarding donor-advised funds, would be more effective than relying on the discretion of plutocratic actors. This reflects a broader cultural tension between the traditional expectation of industrialist generosity and a modern era of concentrated wealth accumulation.

從政策角度來看，批評者認為自願機制是不充分的。政策研究學院建議，實施財富稅以及提高捐贈者建議基金（donor-advised funds）的透明度等結構性干預措施，會比依賴權貴人士的裁量權更有效。這反映了傳統上對工業巨頭慷慨之舉的期望，與現代財富高度集中時代之間更廣泛的文化緊張關係。

The philanthropic landscape is currently defined by a conflict between stagnant voluntary pledges and an emerging, more aggressive redistribution model driven by generational wealth transfer.

目前的慈善格局，是由停滯不前的自願誓言與由世代財富轉移驅動、更激進的新興重新分配模式之間的衝突所定義。