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

191–200 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#191

Post by glacials »

superasn wrote: post #160

Is a person who invests that money for-profit but makes giant advancements in maths/science while doing it an equally big giver? Take for example, Elon musk. Even though he hasn't given monet away to charities like Chuck, his for-profit enterprises like electric cars, solar farms, spacex and possibly neuralink might just have been things that end up equally great for humanity. So if you have billions I guess timtowtd…

Bingo! Balance is key.

Farmers working under communist rule in China who started private farming caused agricultural productivity to skyrocket and the number of starving people to drop [1]. Say what you will about human greed, but aligning a behavior you want with a natural economic incentive is a powerful tool.

On the flipside, some industries like healthcare don't belong in such a ruthless system, because "voting with your wallet" is sometimes equivalent to "voting with your life". Other industries like scientific research have too long a lag time for the the companies to stay afloat, or for the decision makers to benefit from the decision. These industries are the ones that frequently need help from government, nonprofit, donors, etc.

[1]: https://reaction.life/chinese-capitalist-growth-happened-spi...

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#193

Post by narwally »

raz32dust wrote: post #140
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.

That's how I do it. I don't have a 6+ figure salary, or tons of disposable income, so I can't afford to give 10% of my income without reducing how much I put into savings. One thing I do have is more time on my hands than the average person. So for things like open source projects that I benefit greatly from, I always try to give some portion of my time with things like improving documentation, always submitting detailed bug reports, or writing updated versions of tutorials that are out of date.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#194

Post by aidenn0 »

Baeocystin wrote: post #167
zpeti wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am amazed at how easily you skip over the fact that this means government gets to spend that money. As if that were some ideal outcome which would solve all problems. Which government exactly is it that you think is excellent at solving societal problems and spending taxes efficiently?

Not the person you asked, but I think Singapore does a good job of things. Their civil servant class is exceptionally skilled.

I don't know much about Singapore, but it tops the Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom, which implies it has a fairly low tax burden.

[edit]

The top individual income tax rate is 22 percent, and the top corporate tax rate is 17 percent. The overall tax burden equals 14.1 percent of total domestic income[1].

1: https://www.heritage.org/index/country/singapore

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#195

Post by grugagag »

BrainInAJar wrote: post #59
dougmccune wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While many wealthy philanthropists enlist an army of publicists to trumpet their donations, Feeney went to great lengths to keep his gifts secret. Seems like that was by design.

> 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…

I wonder if philanthropy is used sometimes to garner narcissistic supply as I suspect a lot of billionaires are narcissists or psychopaths (not necessarily malicious but these qualities help in wealth building). If so, I think we should respond positively to these and provide the narcissistic supply (and hold off from criticism even if it's hard to) so this becomes a trend among the billionares.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#196

Post by smattiso »

This guy is my hero. I do hope he was able to enjoy spending some of his money on himself and his family though. I have no problem with billionaires who contribute a lot to society living well as long as they aren't hording resources (huge acreage estates, mega yachts, rental properties). "Contribute to society" is the sticking point for many of them though.

I hope I can live like Mr. Feeney, although I personally wouldn't be quite as ascetic as he given the circumstances (I would own a small but nice house in San Diego or Hawaii and a nice 0 emission solar/sail powered boat).

Good work Chuck!

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#197

Post by anonAndOn »

benatkin wrote: post #174
anonAndOn wrote: post #146

Mark Benioff donated $100M to the UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital and got his name on the INSTITUTION (not just a building). What many don't know is that donation was to complete a match of $125M offered by Chuck Feeney (who does not have his name on a building anywhere on the campus, AFAIK).[0]. That $125M was only part of the $394M Chuck ended up giving to UCSF.[1] [0] https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/uc…

I'm OK with his name on it. It seems to be a mutually beneficial branding move. Also it's Marc Benioff. Edit: I'm more than fine with it because it makes Zuckerberg seem less special.

How is it mutually beneficial for the guy who donated the most money?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#198

Post by Vervious »

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…

Funding top research institutions are in fact long shot bets.

Where else does research get done? Who pays for the buildings, where each one costs hundreds of millions of dollars? Scholarships? Who pays for new tenured positions?

Yes, administrative costs could be cut (I think substantially). But there's this long-going misunderstanding about the roles of endowments at American universities. These endowments have been budged into the next century of operation -- each year they are expected to generate some income to cover operating expenses. These expenses include salaries, financial aid, etc. The larger the endowment, the more income. They can't just drain the whole thing to pay for a building, because then they auction off the future for the present.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#199

Post by nemo44x »

quickthrower2 wrote: post #39
Multiplayer wrote: post #5

I cannot get my head around this. To be that good at making money and that intent at giving it away is such a massive paradox not to mention paradigm shift from how we typically discuss wealth and wealth accumulators. Looking for video interviews....

He didn’t get caught up in the money trap that almost everyone is, and I wondered how he did that? Is it religion? Is it innate morals? How he was raised? Very interesting. Hope I can learn something from this. What does a non rich person do? I guess it is about trying to influence things rather than injecting money.

> What does a non rich person do?

Time is money and if you don't have money then give your time. It's the most generous thing a person can do. More so than money in many ways since you can always make more money but you can't make more time.

You can't expect to make a major change in the world. But you can make some small changes that means the world to some people.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#200

Post by khalilravanna »

Cerealkiller050 wrote: post #71
khalilravanna wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. Especially being an American. We have such a materialistic, maximalist culture. There’s definitely a psychological element here to be able to tune out all those negative messages (“Why don’t I have a nicer car/house/yacht than Alice/Bob?”). I’d be interested on where he falls on the satisficer/maximizer scale.

"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...

I have never heard the complete opposite so thanks for the data.

It’s interesting because having grown up steeped in the culture for 30 years I have never once heard this or seen much real charitable action. I see small donations and token donations but very rarely anything like donating most of ones wealth or giving up excess to donate to those less well-off.

I’d love to better understand this discrepancy. I hear more about how much money people spend more than how much they donate in the media. And even anecdotally I can’t think of anyone talking about a donation they made in conversation. It seems like this should be something we talk about and champion more.

Post reply on HN