Co-owner of “alpha Groups” Michael Friedman at the meeting of the Club, Forbes said he did not intend to bequeath their wealth to children and allowed it to charity, adding that would not attract children to work in their company “the alpha-Groups”.
Friedman expects that his children will earn their fortune.
This practice is gaining popularity among billionaires – have done likewise, for example, bill gates and Warren Buffett.
There is, however, a point of view that this ostentatious charity – just a simple way of avoiding taxes.
Not too bad we think about millionaires?
Host of “the Fifth floor” Michael Smotryaev and observer of bi-Bi-si Alexander Kahn talk with the Professor of the Higher school of Economics Olga Cousin.
____________________________________________________________
Michael Smotryaev: the First question that arose when we read this stunning news this morning: “And what, I wonder, said the children of Mikhail Fridman?”
He has four of them, all of them still quite young. I admit that those who are older – who already understands that money (as soon as that broadcast was made) should be as long as necessary specifically in this moment, but you probably guessed that this news is for them not the most pleasant.
Then we decided to widen the angle of our discussion, talk about how that charity of this kind, first, became popular with the light hand of the richest people in the world, and, secondly, it superficially, on the surface, it looks from all sides very well.
On the one hand, it is necessary to share when you have so many billions, tens. It is not clear, where them to spend – I guess you could buy anything, and even twice, and still many will remain. On the other hand, and good for kids, because they don’t grow quite finally freeloaders, or crown Prince, or crown hangers – there you can argue. It turns out that this kind of action on the part of very rich people there are no negative sides – at least obvious – leaving for a moment aside the delicate moment with the tax evasion. What do you think?
Olga Kuzina: it seems to Me that this point of view has right to exist. Do you have the desire to give back to the community what happened to make money from the same companies.
Often this is due not only to the efforts of the man himself, but also some random factors, some things he did not even imagine that can affect the outcome of events. Earned money is only partially the result of his merits, so to give back, in my opinion, quite fit in with the logic of today and the desire to look not only a successful businessman, but a decent human being.
On the other hand, the way in which organized charitable foundations, what they are today are not very transparent, their governance, the effectiveness of these funds leaves a lot of questions. Naturally, in such organizations the charity has the opportunity to use the money for personal purposes.
For example, there were cases when the company is making charitable contributions to the Fund, in fact, through this Fund prepare their own personnel or something else, that is, the Fund provided services to the company, and it was pure tax evasion.
In Russia also with charitable foundations, especially in the 90-ies, is associated a very big problem, it is with money laundering, tax evasion. Today, these things to a lesser extent distinctive, because legislation has changed.
To provide charitable company can only out of their profits, there are various large tax concessions, which could involve the use of these funds not for the purpose of charity. Nevertheless, this sector is not transparent enough, so here both can be real.
Alexander Kang: Olga E., I have a question for you with the charity and the allocation of funds to major oligarchs or even any business – large or not large.
Recently in London there was a meeting with the Minister of culture of Russia Vladimir Medinsky. I asked him a question: in the West there is a practice of tax exemption of the funds, allocated by the corporations for the needs of culture, in Russia this practice.
Medinsky has answered my question and explained the lack of such practices in Russia, saying that the money, since they tax, you still belong to the state, and we ourselves, thus taking responsibility for where and how to distribute this money to the culture, and do not give by businessmen, corporations to make that choice.
This kind of position seems to me an echo of Soviet times. About to free corporations, companies, business, giving money to culture, it is a very long time, but things are there. What do you say?
O. K.: In Russia, I think, do not. How many of these schemes have been: in order to evade taxes, using any loopholes. First it was the charitable funds, then the insurance company.
In order for the salary to not pay taxes, people insured – allegedly – his staff, each month the insured event occurred, and was paid the insurance compensation, instead of wages that are not taxed. I understand the rationality.
If the person or Corporation provides charitable assistance, it would be good to encourage her to ensure that she did more, through tax incentives, but it seems to me that in Russia it is impossible, because it would be used totally for other purposes.
AK: Simply because of the fact that people are not honest and not decent?
O. K.: It’s not the people not honest and not decent, but the system forces them to play like that. Moreover, corporate philanthropy in Russia is, I think, Weber’s exchange of loyalty benefits, it is also not voluntary.
If you want to work on some of the territory of the Russian Federation as a whole or in some small region, district or region, then you should be loyal to the local authorities. Therefore, any need for her case to come to the rescue and shut there holes that she can’t from the budget to close, or something to subsidize.
In graduate school I graduate student just writing a paper on the subject, returned from the field. She cited an example: the money allocated to districts for the repair of the monument, but he was not completely repaired until the end, because somehow, not enough money, not because they are few, but because they went into the wrong pockets.
Then businessmen are asked to bring the repair up to the end to report that the repair is carried out completely. This kind of thing in Russia, has yet to present, so talk about what you need to release from taxes is another scheme, different logic, different principles of relationships.
M. S.: Indeed, can in Conservatory that correct? To begin with it is necessary with this. In these arguments one more thought is quite popular. With regard to tax evasion, accusations of this kind are heard not only in Russia but also in countries where, it would seem, and tax law is much more understandable to ordinary citizens. Although millionaires surely you can hire some good accountants, and the activities of various charitable organizations, too, are more transparent.
Still this kind of accusations are sometimes even accused of all sorts of conspiracies. About it, I think we still have some time – several decades or more – one way or another we will speak.
If you look, for example, on the young shoots millionenshow somewhere in China – there are now quite a lot, something from their point of view do not understand the contribution to charity to the detriment of his own family.
We under Western culture, the Western model we understand quite well this idea: that children should not grow at all ready, – at the level where they can feed the average billionaire is because in a certain way that distorts their view of life in the future, and it will be very difficult to fight.
On the other hand, if you look from the perspective of a fairly traditional culture, popular in China, India, in developing countries, it is all his – to the family. This logic – to give to charity, not to have this no control when the money can feed all the descendants until the twelfth tribe, they do not really understand. What do you say, Olga E.?
O. K.: a Difficult situation. At the time, in 2000-ies, published a book about Joan Roles American funds, where she very convincingly demonstrated, with examples, who are these funds begins to lead and how settled the children of billionaires who, in the opinion of the parents or in his own opinion, not able to take the business from the father or the mother.
Funds is one of such beautiful places of their employment for various reasons: sometimes simply not able, or struggles against capitalism and said, “dad – you’re an exploiter, and I want to improve the world”.
Then is created the Fund – not necessarily under him, he is already there. The status of high, responsibility is much less than to steer the business. In this case, the Fund does not mean that taken away from children, and means that passed to the children. This money should not be making.
Very often funds are structured like an endowment, i.e. the endowment, in which the Fund invested, it is placed in securities, which each year generate a profit, and philanthropy is on the income from the trust capital.
Hired a professional, which places them more or less adequately is not losing money, but becomes – and then you’re free. To improve the world as you think it necessary. Income there is some there, including a refund of 10 or 15% can be spent on staff salaries, so it’s not always withdrawal from children.
M. S.: no One said it’s withdrawal from the children, but in regard to the children who grow up all ready, when all ready it’s made of gold and precious stones, – there is a lot to talk about.
If in London in certain districts to walk, there is quite clearly seen where the money of the oil kings disappear – of course, not all, but some number of them. Supercars, coated with gold in a literal sense, some other things that even in fairly moderate British cause extension of the eye, some other symptoms, which, in normal times will not meet.
On the other hand, I remember the episode, as the store Selfridges – probably one of the most expensive and prestigious is still in the United Kingdom – in Central London I watched some Arab Sheik, who, being dressed in traditional clothes, in bad English tried in my Rolex to change the battery.
The seller broke him for the money approx battery such as average are normal hours. That, as I understand it, a man of experience, your earning money on their own, understand that it is inflated, in spite of the poor knowledge of English, and the battery for hours, even for Rolex, they refused to offer him spend some tens or hundreds of pounds.
In this regard, agree that it is possible to say that children who grow up all ready, to further improve the world represent less valuable, than their parents who earned it all their work, even with an animal grin of capitalism in the face.
O. K.: it is Clear that the motivation of the children, when you have everything, is quite difficult, but I think that the question is not whether there is money or no money.
We see a bunch of demotivated children and the poor that do not see the point in education, in work, and trying by criminal means to obtain whatever they want. It likely depends on what kind of person and how to educate them, the more that the rich often this is farmed out to nannies.
It’s always surprising to me because with a child you have to be, because the child is brought up not by words or photos of parents, and brought up in the presence of their parents, repeating what parents do.
When mainly time spent with the child’s nanny, is a child nurse. Hence, perhaps, often the problems that arise. I’m probably a Marxist would say: work is work.
The idea is that for a properly educated human life is inseparable from labour. If he had nothing to do, and there’s only pastime in the clubs or on yachts, such a person can not live happily.
To educate children in the understanding that labour is not a serious charge, and your way of self-realization, – it seems to me, that’s enough. In addition, the money when we’re talking about billionaires, is not money stacks in the banks or at home.
This is money invested in companies, they can not be spent. When such statements are made, – that all my inheritance goes to the children, and in charity – we are talking about businesses.
Personal money is fairly large, and flat, and the car is all children remains. I don’t think they put on a par with the children of the middle class or the poor, where to get education we get education loan, but to buy a car or apartment, is to get a mortgage or a car loan.
From the point of view of basic needs, they all provided. To motivate them to something else, is, I think, is connected with money, but with personal charisma, personal qualities of the billionaire and his family, and his time.
Wife’s choice is very important, the choice of a life partner who will be able to convey to children the right attitude and the right values.
M. S.: In any case, at the end of our conversation I had the feeling, Alex, that the children of billionaires for us to worry yet. Judging by the fleet in certain areas of London, they are not a curse, a piece of bread that he gave us with you chip is not necessary. This is very good news.
