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

241–250 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#241

Post by refurb »

jedberg wrote: post #122
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...

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…

A lot of people only donate to reduce their tax bill.

That makes no sense. If I get to deduct a donation, then when I donate $1000, it really only costs me $700. But it still costs me $700.

I would have more money if I never donated.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#242

Post by s17n »

javajosh wrote: post #187
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…

Sorry you're getting down-votes, because I think you bring up a very important point. We as a society should understand the trade-offs involved when we allow individuals to accumulate truly vast wealth. In general terms, this increases the variance in how the money can be spent. One guy might give it away, another builds rockets, another buys gilded toilets for his estate. Individual decision makers can do much bette…

I downvoted, not because of what he said or how he said it, but because there's basically no chance that the comment will lead to an enlightening conversation.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#243

Post by kelnos »

Rotten194 wrote: post #201
chadrs wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just depends on whether you trust a government or a rich philanthropist to "properly use" capital (get the most impact/$). If you let billionaires make the choices then sure you get some like Feeney/Gates/Buffett but you get Koch brothers. Government could theoretically do a more equitable job but only if social programs are run competently. Think about the leadership of EPA and HUD.

Tax dollars go vastly more to dropping bombs on civilians in the middle east and ICE and the NSA than they do to any positive social program (ignoring things like social security that are funded by a separate tax that billionaires wouldn't pay much into under most schemes). I don't love the outsized influence on society that billionaires have, I certainly don't love the Koch brothers -- but I think looking at the $X…

So the thing is... tax dollars go more to dropping bombs on civilians in the Middle East and to ICE and the NSA because that's what people overwhelmingly want. I guarantee you that if public opinion shifted hard against these things, we'd see less funding over the years toward them.

But it doesn't. Regardless of what we say here, the majority of the US wants a big military, and wants hard immigration controls.

Then it becomes a different argument: should we tax the wealthy more if it means the money will go to government initiatives that the majority seems to want, even though a minority of us believe that those things are largely bad for society and the world, and represent short-term thinking that is a result of bad risk assessment? Essentially, should we let the use of this money be directed by the will of the people (rather than a few ultra-rich people) even if we believe the will of the people is often wrong?

I don't have great answers to this. As another commenter mentioned, the billionaire-philanthropist system is good when we have people like Feeney, but fails when we have people like the Kochs. Do we have a net excess of Feeneys in the world, or Kochs? And even if we have the former, is that still a good thing; could we get more fair or equitable outcomes if we did let electorate decide how to allocate these funds? And even if we couldn't, is it antithetical to democratic values to go against the will of the people, even if the people are wrong? And if so, does that matter? I tend to think it does, but I can see the argument for both sides.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#244

Post by freeopinion »

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 a big part of the Feeney story is that he didn't just donate money. He got involved. He took an interest and made sure he was making a difference, or at least was doing his best to make a difference. He gave his time and his personal effort.

I remember watching a documentary on him some time ago. There was some issue he was interested in. I think it involved a community in Ireland. He put his money into the issue, but it didn't have the desired outcome. He looked closely at what they were doing and decided the strategy wasn't a failure, so he committed some astounding amount more with specific strings attached. His strings forced others to put skin in the game with him. Then they worked together towards their desired outcome.

How do you make sure that your donation to the blind center will get that roof repaired? Grab a hammer.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#245

Post by jonahx »

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…

The Anonymous Donor:

https://youtu.be/ZAKrb9b4s28?t=100

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#246

Post by Balgair »

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!

I'm not sure what the actual name of the phenomenon is but I've heard it call 'wife-name-last name' syndrome.

Basically, the uber rich want to be seen as something more than just money. Guys like Anschutz and whatnot. There seems to be a pattern where they get a new shiny glass and steel building with a bunch of sick kids in it, and then they put the wife's name, an ampersand, his name, and the last name in big 3-D letters on the side. Likely it's a tax writeoff.

Also, not to be too cynical, but it's not a bad thing overall. The money could be sitting in the Caymans afterall.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#247

Post by yboris »

brundolf wrote: post #153
read_if_gay_ wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That point about cost effectiveness is what always leaves a bitter taste in my mouth when donating. I didn't realize people put lists of recommendations together, that's nice to see. But how would you go about verifying any stated claims?

This site ranks charities based on their finances, with breakdowns on different axes: https://www.charitynavigator.org/

Overhead is a bad thing to look at: http://overheadmyth.com/

If an organization cures blindness for $20 through cataract surgeries in developing nations, and another spends $40,000 to train a seeing eye dog for a single individual, we are looking at ratios of 1:1000 in terms of effectiveness. The amount spent on 'overhead' is irrelevant!

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#248

Post by Shivetya »

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!

politicians do it all the time and sometimes they don't even wait till who they name it after has passed.

I would much rather someone have something named for them who donated their own wealth than a political party go around stamping their members names everywhere.

I would much rather have the naming of government buildings to be never named for any politician.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#249

Post by ticmasta »

silentsea90 wrote: post #232

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. Unfortun…

I don't think Chuck Feeney set out to be purposely secretive as much as anonymous and focused on the money doing the work. I think stories like this one in Forbes highlight he understands the necessity of good leadership by talking about the mission after it's accomplished, rather than looking for recognition during the process. Gates & Buffet are role models for the getting started; Feeney for how you finish.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#250

Post by jedberg »

refurb wrote: post #241
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…

A lot of people only donate to reduce their tax bill. That makes no sense. If I get to deduct a donation, then when I donate $1000, it really only costs me $700. But it still costs me $700. I would have more money if I never donated.

A lot of people don't understand how tax deductions work, and assume that they get the full value. Also, as noted below, it has a PR benefit while also giving you a 30% "discount".
Post reply on HN