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

231–240 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#231

Post by throwaway2048 »

brightball wrote: post #217
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…

There’s millions of people in this country that donate anonymously. People’s ability to agree where money should be given isn’t great. Worse so when the people who are giving the most have less say in where it goes. In my experience, most appeals like the above tend to be driven by the idea that they would make better decisions than the philanthropist.

In the end, donations are a form of political power, If only deciding what gets funded, and what doesn't, even before all the other self promotion stuff surrounding them.

Whats a better model for deciding the distribution of political power, a democratic one, or a dictatorial one?

At the very least I don't think its an unreasonable position to believe that democracy makes more sense.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#232

Post by silentsea90 »

There's certainly a paradox in the ideal of being secretive with your donations and thereby not being able to make an example that others could follow, or being vain in beating your drum but setting an example for charity.

For myself, I have always wanted to appear to be doing my best in hiding my charitable donations while inadvertently getting discovered for my generosity, killing two birds with one stone. Unfortunately, I don't nearly have the wealth to pull this off.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#233

Post by talmr »

smattiso wrote: post #203
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…

Namely something after yourself is tacky. But what should buildings be named after? Famous scientists? Planets? Feeney seems like an awesome guy but sadly in 100 years nobody will know his name!

People who mean well will always know his name.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#234

Post by grasshopperpurp »

smattiso wrote: post #203
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…

Namely something after yourself is tacky. But what should buildings be named after? Famous scientists? Planets? Feeney seems like an awesome guy but sadly in 100 years nobody will know his name!

>Feeney seems like an awesome guy but sadly in 100 years nobody will know his name!

I'm 99.9999999% certain that no one cares about their name when they're dead.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#237

Post by lucaspm98 »

dangus wrote: post #63
raiyu wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the government has such a great track record of collecting tax revenue and then investing it where it is appropriate? Questions can be raised about some of his specific donations, but when someone gives away $8B of his wealth, spending nearly none on himself, does it globally, influences other billionaires to do the same, picking at any one of his specific donations seems counter productive. Yes Cornell is an…

My argument is that a system that allows $8 billion in wealth to accumulate enough to be controlled by one person has already failed. The US government is actually really impressively good in a lot of areas, and I personally get fatigued of the oft-repeated notion that government “can’t possibly work” or that they “can’t possibly spend tax dollars responsibly.”

I believe the government's role is to provide protection from foreign threats, guarantee basic human rights, reasonably regulate the business environment, and provide basic public services that are only possible on a society-level basis. When they get into areas that local communities and private charities operate, they'll at best be inefficient and more than likely be corrupt at some level.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#238

Post by jedberg »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #148
jedberg wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most countries don't let you deduct your donations from your taxes. It's hard to compare levels of giving across nations because of this. A lot of people only donate to reduce their tax bill. Also, because we don't have a social safety net in the US, a lot of people donate to make up for that, which is certainly noble, but would be far less necessary if we had a stronger social safety net that more evenly distributed…

With very few (and even then, extremely capped) exceptions, the US absolutely does not let you deduct donations from your taxes. You’re allowed to deduct your donations from your pre-tax income, which is equivalent to being able to deduct some percentage (typically less than 30%) of your donations from your actual tax burden. It’s not being pedantic; this changes the calculus altogether. Deducting from your taxes mea…

This is a fair point, most people don't understand how tax deductions work.

But yes, I meant your pre-tax income, as all deductions work. Credits apply to taxes directly, deductions always mean pre-tax income.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#239

Post by asaph »

grasshopperpurp wrote: post #234
smattiso wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Namely something after yourself is tacky. But what should buildings be named after? Famous scientists? Planets? Feeney seems like an awesome guy but sadly in 100 years nobody will know his name!

>Feeney seems like an awesome guy but sadly in 100 years nobody will know his name! I'm 99.9999999% certain that no one cares about their name when they're dead.

A lot of people care about their legacy.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#240

Post by bedhead »

I’ve long argued for massive estate tax rates on large estates in order to incentivize behavior like this. I have no problem at all with Bezos being worth $200 billion (or whatever it is now), but it’s this dynastic wealth that I find borderline sickening. Why in the hell should the Rockefeller’s of today be billionaires??? Also, these giant charitable foundations/family offices are similarly off-putting, as they are setup as semi-perpetual institutions that often only make the minimum 5% distribution annually. (Another fix would be to jack that up to 25% upon death) Big estate taxes seem to solve for a lot of problems with appropriate compromises.
Post reply on HN