朱平: 生意人 . 悅日人. 漣漪人

From Die with Zero to Die with Purpose

GPC Taiwan｜The Taiwan Generosity Culture Movement

We are very good at measuring things.

We measure income, assets, investment returns and opportunity costs. We measure GDP and GDP per capita.

In the age of AI, we may become even better at calculating. That is not necessarily a bad thing. For younger generations especially, housing costs, careers, family responsibilities and uncertainty about the future make opportunity cost very real.

I have long appreciated the idea behind Die with Zero:

Don’t spend your whole life accumulating. Use your resources while you still have the time, health and ability to create a life worth remembering.

Bill Perkins calls this a Memory Dividend.

A journey taken when we are young, an adventure, or time spent with someone we love doesn’t pay us only once. Every time we remember it, the experience can pay another dividend.

Over the past few years, however, I have found myself asking another question:

What if there is also a Ripple Dividend?

Some things don’t disappear when they leave our hands.

Money. An opportunity. An introduction. Our time. A room. Trust. Even the simple words:

“Please use me.”

They enter someone else’s life. And sometimes, through that person, they travel again.

We may never know where the ripple ends.

Perhaps that is part of its beauty.

From Memory Dividend to Ripple Dividend

Die with Zero asks:

Did I use my resources to live fully?

I would like to add another question:

When I leave, beyond my memories, what will I leave behind?

These ideas don’t compete.

We don’t have to live less in order to give more.

And generosity doesn’t need to mean sacrifice.

Making another person happy can make us happy. Making the world a little better can make our own lives more meaningful.

Perhaps these aren’t opposing interests at all.

That is why my thinking has gradually moved from Die with Zero toward Die with Purpose.

Not as a rejection of the first idea.

Just one more question:

Beyond living fully, what did I put back into the world?

When accumulation becomes an excuse to postpone giving

I see Taiwan caught up in an intense fascination with the stock market.

Investing is not wrong. Compounding is useful. Financial security gives us freedom.

But there is a danger hidden inside the phrase:

“I will give after I have accumulated enough.”

“Enough” has a habit of moving farther away. A higher return creates a higher target. A larger portfolio creates a stronger fear of losing it. Giving is postponed until some future stage of life that may never arrive.

We calculate investment returns, but rarely calculate what generosity returns to a life.

A gift made today can create meaning now. It can create trust, opportunity, human connection and a Ripple Dividend that may continue through other people.

Wealth accumulation should increase our freedom. But when accumulation becomes the purpose itself, it can quietly reduce freedom and postpone happiness.

Generosity is not the enemy of investing. It gives investing a larger purpose.

We do not need to stop building wealth.
We need to stop postponing generosity.

This is the bridge from Die with Zero to Die with Purpose.

What if, alongside GDP, we talked about Generosity Per Capita?

We use GDP to measure how much economic value a society produces, and GDP per capita to look at economic output per person.

But is the richness of a society captured only by how much it produces, earns and consumes?

I began wondering:

Could we also talk about Generosity Per Capita—GPC?

By GPC, I do not mean Giving Per Capita.

It isn’t simply a country’s annual charitable donations divided by its population. Nor is the purpose to create another international ranking of who gives the most.

The question that interests me is larger:

How generous is our society, person by person?

Are people willing to share money, time, knowledge, connections, spaces and opportunities?

Are those with something useful to offer willing to say:

“Please use me”?

Are we willing to put some of what we have back into circulation?

GPC, then, isn’t only about donations.

It is an attempt to understand a society’s culture of generosity.

A first, rough monetary formula could be:

Monetary GPC = Total documented private charitable giving during the year ÷ Total resident population

The numerator could initially include donations actually made by individuals and businesses to legally registered NPOs, NGOs, foundations, public-benefit organizations and religious organizations.

Government grants should be excluded, and transfers between nonprofit organizations should not be counted twice.

Like GDP per capita, this formula invites us to ask: beyond the economic value produced per person, how much do we put back into society per person?

This is only a first monetary approximation. Generosity also includes time, knowledge, relationships, volunteering, spaces, trust and saying “Please use me.” These dimensions deserve further research.

But we can begin with a measurable question:

Alongside wanting a higher GDP, would we also like to live in a society with a higher GPC?

GPC is not a goodness score

This matters enormously to me.

If GPC ever becomes a leaderboard of who is more generous, I think we will have lost the point.

I don’t want generosity to become another form of status.

And I certainly don’t want it to become another source of moral pressure.

So I would like to put down one principle at the very beginning:

Your GPC is not a score of how good you are.
It is a question about how intentionally you live.

At the societal level, I would put it this way:

GPC isn’t a score of how good we are.
It invites us to ask what kind of society we choose to become—and how each of us chooses to live within it.

Not because we should.

Because we choose to.

From social culture to personal practice

If GPC is about the generosity culture of a society, what about the individual?

Here I would like to keep things very simple.

At least initially, let’s measure money.

Time, knowledge, introductions, presence and saying “Please use me” are all forms of generosity. Sometimes they may be worth far more than money.

But once we try to assign a monetary value to every hour, introduction and act of generosity, the idea quickly becomes complicated.

So:

Not everything generous can be measured.
But measuring one simple thing can remind us to give more intentionally.

That leads to two personal measures that are easy to understand.

Generosity Ratio (GR): How much of what became freely available did I actually give?

The formula is:

GR = Actual annual giving ÷ Annual discretionary cash flow × 100%

“Actual annual giving” means money or assets already given or irrevocably transferred for public benefit. An intention, an unpaid pledge or a future budget does not yet count.

“Annual discretionary cash flow” means the cash that remains freely available after taxes and essential personal and family obligations. Someone with a simple financial life may use a consistent after-tax income measure as a practical approximation.

Here is a purely hypothetical example:

If someone has NT$300,000 of discretionary cash flow during the year and actually gives NT$15,000:

GR = 5%

The exact percentage is not the point. Consistency and intention are.

There is no morally correct GR. One percent, three percent, five percent or another number does not make someone a better person. Nor should GR become a public competition.

It asks a private but useful question:

Did generosity have an intentional place in the design of my life this year—or did I postpone it again?

GR measures an individual’s annual practice. A young person with few accumulated assets can begin immediately. The formula turns “someday” into “this year.”

Ripple Ratio (RR): How much of what I have accumulated have I committed to the future?

As we move through life, the question gradually changes.

We accumulate cash, investments, property, business ownership and other assets.

Eventually I find myself asking:

Of everything I have accumulated, how much is ultimately meant only for me—and how much have I intentionally committed to something larger than myself?

So:

RR = Assets formally committed to future public purpose through a will, notarized declaration, trust, transfer to a foundation or another documented arrangement ÷ Total personal assets × 100%

RR isn’t about how much I donated this year.

It asks how much of the wealth accumulated during my lifetime has been formally directed toward creating public-purpose ripples in the future.

For transparency, I distinguish between two layers:

Commitment RR includes assets designated through wills, notarized documents, trusts and other formally documented commitments to future public purpose.

Irrevocable RR includes only assets already legally transferred beyond personal recall or redirection.

This lets us recognize long-term intention while remaining honest about how much has already been put irreversibly into action.

It is a question of legacy.

The whole framework now becomes quite simple:

GPC looks at the generosity culture of a society.

GR looks at an individual’s annual practice.

RR looks at an individual’s long-term legacy.

Or:

GPC is the culture.
GR is the practice.
RR is the legacy.

We can begin at every stage of life

One thing I particularly like about this framework is that it doesn’t belong only to wealthy people.

At 25, perhaps you have almost no accumulated assets.

That’s fine.

You can begin with your Generosity Ratio.

At 45, income may have grown, but so may family responsibilities. You can ask whether generosity has become a regular part of your annual life.

By 65 or 75, after accumulating some assets, the Ripple Ratio may become a more meaningful question:

Where do I ultimately want these resources to go?

Everyone’s answer can be different.

The answer should also be allowed to change at different stages of life.

GPC Taiwan: a generosity culture movement

A movement does not begin when everyone agrees on a perfect formula. It begins when enough people start asking a different question.

GPC: What kind of generosity culture are we creating together?

GR: What portion of what became freely available to me did I actually give this year?

RR: What portion of what I accumulated have I formally committed to serving the future?

We do not need to publish our answers or compare percentages. We can begin privately, speak honestly with trusted friends and choose one concrete act.

The movement is not “give away everything.” It is:

Stop treating generosity as something to do only after wealth accumulation is complete.

We can invest and give. We can enjoy life and create ripples. We can pursue financial freedom while also creating meaning.

The Archangel Program: Die with Purpose in action

The Archangel Program is one practical way a group of us is already putting Die with Purpose into action.

Through stable, long-term commitments, Archangels support trusted organizations so they can employ good people, sustain essential operations and concentrate more fully on their missions.

These Archangels demonstrate that generosity does not need to wait until the end of life—or until wealth accumulation is complete.

Thank you to every Archangel.

You are more than donors. You are showing your children and grandchildren that wealth is not merely something to accumulate or inherit—it can be transformed into purpose. You are teaching them that generosity is not sacrifice, but a sustainable way of living worth carrying forward from one generation to the next.

We should not leave our descendants only wealth.

We should also show them what wealth is for.

If this idea speaks to you, begin privately: calculate your GR and RR, choose one act appropriate to your circumstances, and invite another friend when that person is ready.

That is how a formula becomes a practice—and how a practice may gradually become a culture.

We are part of something larger than ourselves

I am 77 years old.

At this age, I see more clearly that the most interesting question at the end of life may not be “How much do I still own?” but:

How much can I still set in motion?

I don’t want to tell younger people how they should spend their money.

Nor do I want to tell anyone how much they should give.

I simply want to offer an invitation.

The next time we calculate investment returns, opportunity costs or asset allocation, perhaps we can also ask:

What is our GPC?

What is my Generosity Ratio?

What is my Ripple Ratio?

The answers do not need to be shared.

And they certainly do not need to be compared with anyone else’s.

If, one day, more and more people in Taiwan begin asking these questions, perhaps we will gradually develop another way to think about abundance.

Not only:

How much did I earn?
How much did I accumulate?
How much did I experience?

But also:

How much did I give?
How much did I put back into circulation?
And how far might what I leave behind travel?

That is why my thinking has moved from Die with Zero toward Die with Purpose.

Not to live less.

But to make giving part of the experience of being alive.

Live fully. Give intentionally. Die with purpose.

Live well. Give consciously. Leave with purpose.

We are all part of something larger than ourselves.

And every ripple can begin with one person.

Still waters run deep; good deeds travel far.

從 Die with Zero 到 Die with Purpose

GPC Taiwan｜台灣慷慨文化運動

我們很習慣衡量。

衡量收入、資產、投資報酬率；衡量 GDP、人均所得；衡量時間的機會成本。

AI 時代來臨後，我們可能會變得更會計算。這不一定是壞事。尤其對年輕世代而言，房價、工作、家庭責任與未來的不確定性，都讓我們更需要思考：有限的時間和資源，究竟應該放在哪裡？

我一直很喜歡 Die with Zero 帶給我的提醒：

不要只是累積。要在還有時間、健康與能力的時候，好好使用自己的資源，創造值得記住的人生。

作者 Bill Perkins 提出了一個我很喜歡的概念：Memory Dividend（記憶股息）。

年輕時的一次旅行、一場冒險、一段陪伴，並不只發生一次。往後每一次想起，它都可能再次帶給我們快樂。

這幾年，我開始問自己另一個問題：

如果人生除了 Memory Dividend，還有 Ripple Dividend 呢？

有些東西離開我們之後，並沒有消失。

一筆捐款、一個機會、一次介紹、一點時間、一個空間、一份信任，甚至一句：

「有需要的時候，請儘量用我。Please use me。」

它們可能進入另一個人的生命，再從那個人傳出去。

我們不一定知道漣漪最後到了哪裡。

也許正因如此，它才美。

從 Memory Dividend 到 Ripple Dividend

Die with Zero 問的是：

我有沒有好好運用我的資源，讓自己活得更豐盛？

我現在想多問一句：

當我離開的時候，除了留下回憶，我還留下了什麼？

兩者並不衝突。

我們不必少活一點，才能多給一點；也不需要把 generosity 變成犧牲。

讓別人快樂，也讓自己快樂；讓世界多一點美好，也讓自己活得更有意義。也許這本來就是同一件事。

所以，我從 Die with Zero 慢慢走向 Die with Purpose。

不是否定前者。

只是多問一個問題：

除了好好活過，我把什麼重新放回了這個世界？

當累積財富成為延後慷慨的理由

我看到現在的台灣，許多人正沉浸在一股強烈的股票投資熱潮裡。

投資沒有錯。複利很重要。財務安全也能帶給我們自由。

但是，有一句話藏著很大的危險：

「等我累積得夠多以後，我就會開始給。」

問題是，「夠多」往往會不斷向後移動。投資報酬提高了，新的目標也跟著提高；資產增加了，害怕失去的心也可能變得更強。慷慨於是被延後到一個可能永遠不會到來的人生階段。

我們很會計算投資能帶來多少回報，卻很少計算慷慨能為人生帶來什麼。

今天給出的一份資源，可以今天就開始產生意義。它可能創造信任、機會、人與人的連結，也可能形成一份經由別人繼續傳遞的 Ripple Dividend。

財富累積原本應該增加我們的自由；但是，當累積本身成為目的，它也可能悄悄減少我們的自由，並把幸福推遲到未來。

慷慨不是投資的敵人。慷慨讓投資有了更大的目的。

我們不需要停止累積財富。
我們需要停止延後慷慨。

這就是從 Die with Zero 走向 Die with Purpose 的橋樑。

如果 GDP 之外，我們也開始談 GPC？

我們用 GDP 衡量一個社會創造多少經濟價值，也用 GDP per capita 看一個社會平均每人的經濟產出。

但是，一個富足的社會，真的只能用它創造、賺取和消費了多少來衡量嗎？

我開始好奇：

我們能不能也談 Generosity Per Capita——GPC？

這裡的 GPC 不是 Giving Per Capita。

它不是簡單地把一個國家的年度捐款除以人口，也不是要建立另一張「誰捐得比較多」的國家排行榜。

我真正感興趣的是：

一個社會的人均慷慨程度有多高？

人們是否願意分享金錢、時間、專業、人脈、空間與機會？

一個有能力、有資源的人，是否願意說：

“Please use me.”

我們是否願意把自己擁有的一部分，再放回社會裡流動？

因此，GPC想探索的不只是捐款。

它想理解的是一個社會的generosity culture——慷慨文化。

第一個粗略的金錢公式可以是：

Monetary GPC ＝ 全國年度有憑證的民間公益捐贈總額 ÷ 全國總人口

分子可以先計入個人及企業實際捐給依法登記的NPO、NGO、基金會、公益團體及宗教團體的款項。

政府補助不列入；NPO之間的轉撥也應排除重複計算。

這個概念類似GDP per capita。除了計算每個人平均創造多少經濟產值，我們也開始思考：每個人平均願意把多少資源放回社會？

這只是GPC的第一個粗略金錢版本。真正的慷慨還包括時間、專業、人脈、志願服務、空間、信任，以及說出「Please use me」。這些面向值得進一步研究。

但我們可以先從一個可以衡量的問題開始：

除了追求更高的GDP，我們是否也希望生活在一個更高GPC的社會？

GPC 不是善良排行榜

這一點對我非常重要。

如果有一天 GPC 變成「誰比較善良」的排行榜，我想我們就走錯了。

我不希望 generosity 成為新的炫耀，也不希望它變成另一種道德壓力。

所以，我想先為 GPC 留下一個重要原則：

Your GPC is not a score of how good you are.
It is a question about how intentionally you live.

GPC 不是衡量我們有多善良的分數。
它邀請我們思考：我們選擇成為一個什麼樣的社會？而我選擇如何生活？

不是因為我應該。

而是因為我選擇。

從社會文化，到個人實踐

如果 GPC 談的是一個社會的 generosity culture，那麼個人呢？

我希望把個人的部分保持得非常簡單。

至少一開始，只計算金錢。

時間、專業、人脈、陪伴與「Please use me」當然都是 generosity，有時甚至比金錢更珍貴。

但是一旦我們試著替每一小時、每一次介紹、每一份專業訂價，事情很快就會變得複雜。

所以：

不是所有的 generosity 都能被衡量。
但衡量一件簡單的事，可以提醒我們更有意識地給。

這讓我想到兩個可以很容易計算的個人指標。

Generosity Ratio（GR）：今年真正可自由運用的資源中，我實際給出了多少？

公式是：

GR ＝ 當年度已實際完成的公益捐贈 ÷ 當年度可自由運用現金流 × 100%

「已實際完成的公益捐贈」，是指已經支付，或已完成不可撤回法律移轉的金錢與資產。只有意願、尚未支付的承諾或未執行的預算，都還不能計入。

「可自由運用現金流」，是指扣除稅負，以及個人與家庭必要義務後，真正可以自由決定用途的現金。財務狀況比較單純的人，也可以持續採用一致的稅後收入標準作為實用的近似值。

以下只是一個假設例子，並非我的個人數字：

如果某人當年度有NT$300,000的可自由運用現金流，並實際捐出NT$15,000：

GR ＝ 5%

真正重要的不是比例高低，而是定義一致，以及是否有意識地實踐。

GR沒有道德上的「正確答案」。1%、3%、5%或其他比例，都不代表一個人比較善良；GR也不應該成為公開競賽。

它只是邀請我們誠實地問自己：

今年，慷慨有沒有成為我生活設計的一部分？還是我又把它延後了？

GR衡量的是一個人的年度實踐。即使是尚未累積多少資產的年輕人，也可以立刻開始。這個公式把「以後再說」變成「今年如何實踐」。

Ripple Ratio（RR）：我累積的一切，有多少已經承諾給未來？

人生走得更久之後，問題會慢慢改變。

我們開始累積現金、股票、房地產、公司股權，以及其他資產。

這時候，我開始問自己：

我所累積的一切，有多少最後只是留給自己？又有多少，我已經有意識地承諾給比自己更大的未來？

所以：

RR ＝ 已透過遺囑、公證、信託、基金會資產移轉或其他正式安排，承諾投入未來公益使命的資產 ÷ 個人總資產 × 100%

RR不是衡量今年捐了多少。

它衡量的是我們一生累積的資產中，有多少已經透過正式安排，決定在未來繼續產生公益漣漪。

為了保持透明，我把RR進一步分成兩個層次：

承諾RR（Commitment RR）包括遺囑、公證文件、信託安排及其他已正式記錄的未來公益承諾。

不可撤回RR（Irrevocable RR）只包括已經完成法律移轉，個人不能再取回或改變用途的資產。

如此，我們既能看見一個人的長期意願，也能誠實呈現其中有多少已經真正付諸不可撤回的行動。

這是一個關於legacy——傳承的問題。

因此，整個架構現在變得很簡單：

GPC看一個社會的慷慨文化。

GR看一個人的年度實踐。

RR看一個人的長期傳承。

或者：

GPC is the culture.
GR is the practice.
RR is the legacy.

每個人生階段，都可以開始

我喜歡這個架構，因為它不只屬於有錢人。

25 歲，也許沒有多少資產。

沒關係。

可以開始問自己的 Generosity Ratio。

45 歲，收入可能增加，家庭責任也增加。可以開始思考：generosity 是否已經成為每年生活的一部分？

到了 65、75 歲，當我們已經累積了一些東西，Ripple Ratio 才慢慢成為一個更有意思的問題：

最後，我希望這些東西往哪裡去？

每個人的答案都可以不同。

每個人生階段的答案，也應該不同。

GPC Taiwan｜台灣慷慨文化運動

一場運動，不一定要等所有人都同意一套完美公式才開始。當愈來愈多人開始提出不同的問題，改變就已經開始。

GPC：我們正在共同創造一個什麼樣的慷慨文化？

GR：今年真正可自由運用的資源中，我實際給出了多少？

RR：我一生累積的資產中，有多少已經透過正式安排，承諾為未來服務？

我們不需要公開自己的答案，也不需要互相比較比例。可以先誠實地計算，再跟幾位彼此信任的朋友深入談談，並選擇一個具體行動。

這場運動不是要求大家「把一切都捐出去」，而是：

不要再把慷慨延後到財富累積完成以後。

我們可以同時投資，也同時給；可以享受人生，也可以創造漣漪；可以追求財務自由，也可以在當下創造意義。

大天使計劃：Die with Purpose的實際行動

大天使計劃，就是我和一群朋友正在實踐Die with Purpose的其中一個具體行動。

我們透過長期、穩定的承諾，支持值得信任的組織，讓它們可以聘用好的人才、維持基本營運，並把更多心力投入使命。

這些大天使用行動證明：慷慨不必等到人生最後，也不必等到財富累積完成以後。

謝謝每一位大天使。

你們不只是捐款人。你們正在示範給你們的子孫看：財富不只是用來累積或繼承，也可以被轉化為目的；慷慨不是犧牲，而是一種可以持續、並且值得代代傳承的生活方式。

我們留給子孫的，不應該只有財富。

我們還要讓他們看見：財富究竟可以用來做什麼。

如果這個理念與你產生共鳴，可以先從自己開始：私下計算GR與RR，選擇一個適合自己的具體行動；當你遇到一位已經準備好的朋友，也邀請他加入這場對話。

如此，一個公式才會成為實踐；一種實踐，才可能慢慢成為文化。

我們是比自己更大的事情的一部分

我已經 77 歲了。

這個年紀讓我愈來愈清楚：人生最後真正有趣的，也許不是「我還擁有多少」，而是：

我還能讓多少東西開始流動？

我不想告訴年輕人應該怎麼花錢。

也不想告訴任何人應該捐多少。

我只是想提出一個邀請。

下一次我們計算投資報酬率、機會成本、資產配置的時候，也許也可以偶爾問：

我們的 GPC 呢？

我的 Generosity Ratio 呢？

我的 Ripple Ratio 呢？

答案不用告訴別人。

更不需要跟別人比較。

如果有一天，台灣愈來愈多人開始問這些問題，也許我們會慢慢多出一種衡量富足的方法。

不只問：

我賺了多少？
我累積了多少？
我體驗了多少？

也開始問：

我給出了多少？
我把多少放回流動之中？
而我留下的，還會走多遠？

這就是我從 Die with Zero 走向 Die with Purpose 的原因。

不是少活一點。

而是把「給」也變成人生體驗的一部分。

Live fully. Give intentionally. Die with purpose.

好好活。有意識地給。帶著目的離開。

我們都是比自己更大的事情的一部分。

而每一個漣漪，都可以從一個人開始。

靜水流深，善行致遠。