Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 237 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change

#171

Post by loeg »

rolltiide wrote: post #77
mistrial9 wrote: post #3

What are the tax implications of this wealth-transfer? Who are the winners?

We don't know the structure of "The Earth Fund" so here are some possibilities: if its an actual fund then it can make more investments, no immediate tax consequences, but any long term capital losses, because nobody has a sustainability solution that makes any money, will serve to offset any taxes that he would have to pay on the long term capital gains of his Amazon stock sales. if its another charitable foundation…

It's technically only 30% of his tax bill for gifts of appreciated capital, which Bezos will almost certainly prefer to 50% of the cost basis (approximately 0 for his shares). See IRS pub 526. Depending on the specifics of how qualified the donation is, the limit might be as low as 20%.

Re: Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change

#172

Post by KerryJones »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #68
KerryJones wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an interesting idea but impractical to implement. Not all companies are for sale, there are still real uses for coal, and "forcing something to happen" doesn't always makes sense. It's his job to be the best capital allocator he can be, and buying a company just to shut it down is a way to lose a lot of money. Since they are sinking on their own, fighting to find better solutions for the future might have bee…

You would find economic ways to disable these companies from operating. You mustn’t buy a whole company to do this. Maybe you buy a key piece of real estate they need and tie them up in court for years. Maybe you find key employees and hire them away and pay them to garden at the Spheres in Seattle. Maybe you convince a port to no longer allow the transfer of coal through there using economic coercion or donations to…

Sure, and you stop coal from getting to a small town that used it to run it's power supplies, or heat, because you didn't offer a solution and suddenly removed it, or it jacks up the price for low-income/mid-income people. You need a solution, not just "shut down the company", people rely on those jobs. It needs to be an easing-out process.

Re: Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change

#173

Post by DennisP »

adventured wrote: post #157
DennisP wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on that article, Bezos just pledged more money to fight climate change than the U.S. government has spent on it in the past 25 years.

How do you get to that figure? As one example the US Government spends billions of dollars per year subsidizing renewable energy, ie fighting climate change. $6.7 billion in 2016 alone. I'm not arguing that's an appropriate sum, however your 25 year premise is drastically wrong. Since 2010, I'd bet the US Government has spent in the neighborhood of $60-$100 billion on renewable energy subsidies. The EIA reports that…

> $154 billion on climate-change-related activities since 1993 [but] 94 percent of the money was going to programs that weren’t primarily focused on climate change — things like nuclear energy. The money marked as climate spending wasn’t going to new initiatives. Instead, “it’s a bunch of related things we were already doing,”

So 6% of the money being actual new money focused on fixing climate, times $154 billion, is $9.24 billion.

I think that's an appropriate comparison since the Bezos money is new money specifically for fixing climate.

Re: Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change

#174

Post by loeg »

wmf wrote: post #170
loeg wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, elected officials decided that very early in the US's history of personal income tax. It's not like we have direct democracy and 2020 society has voted to approve this policy. We didn't have a federal income tax before 1913, and the government added the charitable deduction during the 1917 WWI revenue act, which also raised the personal income tax rates. As far as I know it's simply never been touched since 191…

The IRS still makes case-by-case decisions about which organizations are legally charities so there is oversight.

You're not wrong, but I don't think this is responsive to my comment. Maybe replying to the wrong one on accident? (Also: any organization can claim religious status and becomes essentially exempt from IRS review of charitable status. See: Scientology. Not that I expect Bezos' fund to do that.)

Re: Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change

#175

Post by wmf »

jlokier wrote: post #138
wtracy wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument seems to be that the donor is not making any actual financial sacrifice, and therefore shouldn't enjoy any publicity or goodwill for their non-sacrifice. There's also this cynical idea that these donations are made purely for PR purposes, not out of any desire to do good. But that's intangible and unquantifiable.

But the donor is making an actual financial sacrifice, a large one, as the GP explained.

Maybe. If Amazon buys $10B worth of electric trucks and clean energy (which coincidentally saves them money and increases the stock price) then Bezos hasn't sacrificed anything. But calling it a fund makes me think this is not the case. Anyway, philanthropy shouldn't be measured in terms of sacrifice.

Re: Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change

#176

Post by loeg »

inerte wrote: post #159
loeg wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personal income tax deductions are additionally capped at 50% of income (and maybe 30% for unearned income? I forget the specifics). So if Bezos' income is $1/year, basically none of this would be deductible if it came from his personal fortune. That said, I think GP is expressing skepticism that the total $10B figure comes from Bezos' personal fortune rather than being a spending plan for AMZN's business. The articl…

> That said, I think GP is expressing skepticism that the total $10B figure comes from Bezos' personal fortune rather than being a spending plan for AMZN's business. The article doesn't exactly make this clear. Yep, more along these lines. Lots of people are latching on the "tax break" but I thought I made a larger point about where the $10b figure is coming from. That's part of my cynicism: Bezos gets to write a gre…

It's also quite possible it's not $10b upfront, but rather a non-binding commitment to contribute $10b over some number of years.

Re: Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change

#177

Post by bcrosby95 »

maest wrote: post #155
bcrosby95 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe governments are good sometimes, but sometimes individuals unilaterally deciding something is a problem can be good too. We can have it both ways, and we currently do.

> sometimes individuals unilaterally deciding something is a problem can be good too This view is mostly true if you agree with that thing being a problem. What if the billionaire unilaterally decides to spend 10B to combat the pro-choice/pro-life movement (whichere you agree with)?

I think individuals that answer to no one is important for the 'random walk' aspect of solutions to problems. If someone fails then oh well. If they succeed it perhaps provides a model for less risk averse agencies to pursue, perhaps even governmental bodies.

Politicians are too risk adverse to approve something that might turn out to be a waste of money. Organizations like these oftentimes even work with government on some level doing stuff government isn't really able to do for various reasons. And 10 billion is a drop in the bucket for the US government.

I think in the long run it tends to work out better. You're focusing on a single issue I might disagree with. I'm looking at all issues this can affect - those I agree with, those I disagree with, and those that everyone agrees with but doesn't really give enough of a crap about so they don't push to have their governments allocate a budget for it.

Looking at just rabidly disagree/agree is a very thin slice of things opposing this sort of action affects.

So to answer your question, yeah, I wouldn't oppose it for an issue I disagree with, because even if they exist I think the system as a whole nets out towards the positive end of things.

Re: Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change

#178

Post by humbledrone »

ukoki wrote: post #167
entangledqubit wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't make money this way but you can still argue that money that would have gone to taxes has now been redirected by an individual to a cause they solely decided is worthwhile.

> You can't make money this way Are you sure? What about something like this: 1. Buy art for $1M 2. Get your friends to bid up the price of the art by selling other works from the artist to each other at inflated valuations 3. Donate art to art gallery with a valuation of $10M 4. Deduct $10M donation from your taxes

That's simply tax fraud.

Re: Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change

#179

Post by toomuchtodo »

KerryJones wrote: post #172
toomuchtodo wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would find economic ways to disable these companies from operating. You mustn’t buy a whole company to do this. Maybe you buy a key piece of real estate they need and tie them up in court for years. Maybe you find key employees and hire them away and pay them to garden at the Spheres in Seattle. Maybe you convince a port to no longer allow the transfer of coal through there using economic coercion or donations to…

Sure, and you stop coal from getting to a small town that used it to run it's power supplies, or heat, because you didn't offer a solution and suddenly removed it, or it jacks up the price for low-income/mid-income people. You need a solution, not just "shut down the company", people rely on those jobs. It needs to be an easing-out process.

That’s your job as a citizen to vote for representation that implements such policies. Don’t like the policies, run for office and vote.

I agree with you these people need to be taken care of (subsidizing energy efficiency programs, such as insulating their homes and installing heat pumps to get them off of coal or oil for thermal needs), but that’s the responsibility of their government (at the moment; I would of course like to see non government efforts if the resources can be mustered).

Re: Jeff Bezos Commits $10B to Address Climate Change

#180

Post by codekilla »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #152
codekilla wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think there is any appetite for funding these types of alternative ‘campaigns’. I’ve also thought a bit about this.

I get mixed reactions from potential wealthy benefactors when I discuss these ideas. Some definitely shun them and would rather play a clean ballgame, but I have had exactly two who have asked who to make the check out to. In front of the right audience, there is an appetite.

I wrote [1] a couple of months ago, a sort of 'clean baseball' version, under the overall auspices of a fund. I've also recently pitched an idea to win Senate seats, but haven't heard anything back on that one (major funding needed). Anyway, if there is interest, or just to brainstorm (as I enjoy this sorta thing), please drop me a line. grant AT eonias DOT (typical non-profit top level domain)

[1] http://d28jgulqbmbful.cloudfront.net/EarthSWF.pdf

Post reply on HN