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

271–280 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#271

Post by zozbot234 »

kelnos wrote: post #243
Rotten194 wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In other words: should we let the use of money be directed by the people who will actually pay with their own money for what they want, or should we let a vacuous "majority" pursue whatever goals they might seem to want, with money that's not even theirs to spend in the first place? I know what my answer would be. Even the Kochs are spending money for what they regard as the good of society. There's nothing inherently 'wrong' with that.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#272

Post by woofie11 »

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/

To be honest, I'd recommend just giving as directly as you can. Right now, I ordered remote teaching equipment for teachers in my community. You can too. Identify people doing good important things, and give them money to do it.

Especially if you give resources to volunteers doing genuinely good work in your community, it has a huge multiplier effect.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#273

Post by halflings »

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.

Shouldn't it be a % of (income - essential expenses), rather than % of non-essential spending?

If you're very frugal, you'd end up giving away a very small amount of money, saving all the rest... Saving is super important, but giving money to effective charities is also a great way to use your money.

To take a typical example of someone that might be reading HN, any software engineer working in NY or the Bay Area can easily give away $10K a year while saving enough money to get a very cozy retirement.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#274

Post by anonAndOn »

M277 wrote: post #256
anonAndOn wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

John Harvard and Elihu Yale seemed to have avoided this fate. And Leland Stanford had the same name as his father, so maybe founding a university is the way to go here?

Most people just gloss over the names from experience, without caring much about who it was named after / the origin.

I'm sure every Eli that's ever graduated from Yale in the last 300 years knows why they're called Elis.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#275

Post by zozbot234 »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #262
zozbot234 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that government has a lot more political power than your average philanthropist. It's not even close. Tax money inherently involves political power, in a way that's simply not the case for philanthropic donations.

The government is however a democracy, Bill Gates isn't.

Strictly speaking, the U.S. is a republic not a democracy. Are you sure that your average congresscritter makes better decisions on money allocation at the margin than a private philanthropist would?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#276

Post by fourseventy »

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…

The guy gives away 8 billion dollars and all you have are complaints... Does he need to turn water into wine before you are happy?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#277

Post by throwaway2048 »

zozbot234 wrote: post #275
throwaway2048 wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government is however a democracy, Bill Gates isn't.

Strictly speaking, the U.S. is a republic not a democracy. Are you sure that your average congresscritter makes better decisions on money allocation at the margin than a private philanthropist would?

I have more faith in democracy than I do in the dictates of random, unaccountable billionaires yes.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#278

Post by robk »

Shivetya wrote: post #248
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!

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.

Mineta airport in San jo always felt so dirty for having the name of a sitting congressperson

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#279

Post by oh_sigh »

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!

Maybe we could be inspired by the soviets. IE a theater where musicals and plays are put on is called: House of Culture of State Ball-Bearing Plant Number 1

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#280

Post by mensetmanusman »

Balgair wrote: post #246
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!

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 l…

Most of the worlds money is sitting in the Cayman’s after-all, or hidden away as art investments inside of storage containers.
Post reply on HN