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

Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#131

Post by longtimegoogler »

ssorallen wrote: post #100
dangus wrote: post #15

Some questions lingered in the back of my mind after I read this article: - How much to employees at Duty Free Shoppers (DFS) make? Is their healthcare fully covered? Do they have generous paid time off and access to higher education for themselves and their children? Was any of his fortune used to give back to the employees whose labor built his wealth in the first place? - Does this dude realize how difficult it is…

> - How much to employees at Duty Free Shoppers (DFS) make? I have similar thoughts when I hear about the philanthropy of the mega wealthy. Instead of a single person like Chuck Feeney or Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates amassing ungodly amounts of wealth and then later choosing how to distribute it, why couldn't the companies they built have made 1,000 or 10,000 or X other people relatively rich instead of one man mega…

Agree. I think the greatest ill of our society is the death of the middle class and the widening gap between the haves and the have nots.

Some suggest that taxation is the answer but maybe another answer is for companies to distribute their wealth more widely.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#132

Post by frenchy »

Cederfjard wrote: post #90
BrainInAJar wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Seems like that was by design. It is. Philanthropy exists to launder the reputations of the rich, on the one hand, and are paternalistic on the other. The only things that get funding are things that can attract the attention of our "betters." If we had taxed them on the front end to the point they couldn't become billionaires in the first place then people in general (through democracy) can decide what causes are…

>And with the added bonus that the negative effects of they got to be billionaires don't cause more problems Sorry, I’m not able to parse this sentence. Could you please rephrase?

I think the jist was that BrainInAJar believes that most people who get super rich do so, not by simply providing value, but by exploiting vulnerabilities in how society works so that they create a need for the value they are going to provide.

I'm not sure how accurate of a representation this is, but it certainly appears to work that way in some places. Realtors are a really good example of this, and of course, Butler's "War is a Racket" is a classic regarding the US military-industrial complex.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#133

Post by umvi »

zozbot234 wrote: post #36
hogFeast wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can also donate your time.

Well, if you're working in paid employment it will usually be a lot more effective to put in some more time at work, and give away some of the resulting income. "Donating your time" can of course be genuinely worthwhile if you're, e.g. a scientist who might want to do useful research on globally-relevant, critical issues; just not very much otherwise.

I think some of the chronic ills of our society are rooted in the (incorrect) belief that solving any given problem is simply a matter of throwing $X at the problem.

"Donating time" is a deceptive phrase because it just sounds like you are paying out some currency other than money and that's it. "Donating time" encapsulates "building friendships, lifting up others, increasing love/unity in communities, gaining new perspectives" and more, unlike "donating money" which encapsulates none of them.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#134

Post by tomjakubowski »

scott31 wrote: post #103
yboris wrote: post #76

I humbly encourage everyone to make giving a larger part of your life. Consider giving at least 10% of your income to cost-effective charities -- because cost-effective charities can do thousands of times more good than merely regular charities. So your $1,000 donation can do as much good as $1 million, if given well. Join others: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/

> So your $1,000 donation can do as much good as $1 million, if given well. Umm, no

A $1,000 donation, if given well, can measure better on this metric than a $1 million donation, if given badly. Not a very meaningful thing to say, I agree.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#135

Post by longtimegoogler »

cantrevealname wrote: post #19

> Where did $8 billion go: health, science, education, and social action Other than science, those are some very bloated and inefficient causes. $1 billion to Cornell? Aren't most of the prestigious universities already swimming in billions of dollars of endowments? He can do what he wants of course, but it would have been nicer if the money was targeted to long shot bets--that only a super rich person could fund--ra…

Yeah. I also think these large contributions to college endowments are of questionable social value. They clearly help the people who go there to get an education but do they really address the issues that people who can't go to an Ivy League school face.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#137

Post by macspoofing »

wahern wrote: post #121
Cerealkiller050 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Especially being an American" I have always heard the complete opposite. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Giving_Index https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/12/28/the_ge...

Somewhere between 32% and 75% of American donations are to churches or church-affiliated organizations. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/30/religious-p... Myanmar is an exceptionally devout Buddhist society with many monasteries supported through traditional almsgiving. I suspect that's why Myanmar tops even the U.S. in the World Giving Index, which merely asks whether you've donated money or time (volun…

>Not that faith-based giving is inferior, but different people have different notions about what constitutes philanthropy and charity.

I'm sure there are people who will find a way to invalidate this kind of charity. But it takes a level of dedication, discipline and a moral code to take 10% of earnings for benefit of your community and do it without legal compulsion. And it's the latter part that makes it different then those that pat themselves on the back for merely voting for higher taxes or disparage others for not voting for higher taxes.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#138

Post by olivermarks »

bena wrote: post #119
olivermarks wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2018/12/11/18129580/gates...

You are just doing the same thing. Posting an article with no context. That and making snide remarks. If you want to say something, say it. Use articles to bolster your point, sure, but posting them without commentary isn't discussion.

@bena do you have a point to make here? Where are my 'snide comments'???

Gates is exponentially wealthier than Feeney, and is extremely noisy in the media he funds as the second wealthiest human on the planet. I wonder what Feeney makes of Gates in 2020.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#139

Post by longtimegoogler »

epylar wrote: post #37
brewdad wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using the 4% rule, $2 million gives you an income stream of $80,000 a year in retirement. Comfortable but hardly lavish.

$2 million in retirement savings puts him above 90th percentile for retirements savings for any age. The maximum 90th percentile I can find is $619,000.00 at ages 60-64. https://dqydj.com/retirement-savings-by-age-united-states/ If he's broke, then at least 90% of retirees are broke.

I think cost of living should be factored into this though. San Francisco is one of the most expensive cities in the world. 2 million is meager to try and retire in SF. You are correct that he clearly isn't broke.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#140

Post by raz32dust »

yboris wrote: post #76

I humbly encourage everyone to make giving a larger part of your life. Consider giving at least 10% of your income to cost-effective charities -- because cost-effective charities can do thousands of times more good than merely regular charities. So your $1,000 donation can do as much good as $1 million, if given well. Join others: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/

I think thinking in terms of percentage of income doesn't work, because the lower your income, the lower a percentage you can afford to give away. I have found it better to think of it as a percentage of your non-essential expenses. e.g, if you spend $500 per month on non-essential things (eating out, movies, netflix, amazon impulse buys etc.), then you can afford giving away 10% of it ($50 per month) to charity.
Post reply on HN