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

311–320 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#311

Post by munificent »

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…

> 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.

Support for the War in Iraq was 39% in 2004, 30% in 2006, 34% in 2007, etc. Despite massive PR campaigns on the part of politicians and the natural tendency to ("support the troops"), our various military adventures are actually not very popular among average Americans.

But they are very very popular among rich members of the military-industrial complex, and those people have enough money to win elections and buy politicians, so here we are.

> Do we have a net excess of Feeneys in the world, or Kochs?

Kochs, absolutely, unequivocally. There is no billionaire on Earth who could fix all of the damage caused to the environment by the Koch brothers, any more than a sufficiently well-intentioned German Chancellor could undo the damage Hitler caused.

This is one of the fundamental asymmetries of life: it is easier to destroy than build, easier to harm than heal. With a cheap kitchen knife and a fraction of a Newton of force, you can sever someone's head. Can you as easily put it back?

This is, I think, the core reason why inequality is dangerous. Because when you concentrate power in fewer people, the variance of the resulting outcomes increases. And if you increase that variance, the bad outcomes get worse more than the good outcomes get better.

Say what you will about hunter-gatherer societies, but they never dropped a nuclear bomb, caused a Holocaust, or filled the atmosphere with lead fumes. We obviously shouldn't dial inequality back to pre-industrial levels, but the existence of billionaires is essentially playing global-scale random wildcards in the game of life.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#312

Post by freeopinion »

halflings wrote: post #270
freeopinion wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

This assumes Feeney is more qualified to know where his money will be most effective and that no one else is out there already doing a ton of research validating the effectiveness of different charities. (both questionable) I think this could be a convenient excuse that keeps some from donating more money (I'll wait until I can spend time creating my own charity / doing some hands-on vetting on who gets my money). Th…

If the roofing example didn't illustrate the point, let me try again.

Donate $100 to a literacy campaign, then volunteer for 30 minutes each week at a beneficiary elementary school to have a struggling reader read to you from one of the books your money purchased. You don't have to buy the book. You don't have to decide which books are purchased. You don't have to decide which student gets to read the books. But you can be involved enough to know that books were purchased and the students are benefiting. And your extra effort makes the $100 so much more fulfilling.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#313

Post by niij »

mattmanser wrote: post #292
smillbag wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The basic argument against the estate tax is moral. It taxes virtue – living frugally and accumulating wealth. Is there something virtuous about hoarding wealth?

Turning greed into a virtue, feels like something only an American economist could do!

The same could be said about people who want to take other's money away. People are spend-thrifts enough as it is, a wealth tax just dis-incentivizes being fiscally responsible.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#314

Post by biztos »

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!

> Famous scientists?

Yes, absolutely. And if a certain General Hospital in San Francisco were not named after the tackiest of billionaires then maybe it could honor, I dunno, Hugh Toland?

Instead of dedicating most of its "about us" page to shining a youngish oligarch's already controversial reputation?

https://zuckerbergsanfranciscogeneral.org/about-us/our-histo...

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#315

Post by jackcosgrove »

settrans wrote: post #261
bedhead wrote: post #240

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…

An Open Letter from Economists on the Estate Tax To whom it may concern: Spend your money on riotous living – no tax; leave your money to your children – the tax collector gets paid first. That is the message sent by the estate tax. It is a bad message and the estate tax is a bad tax. The basic argument against the estate tax is moral. It taxes virtue – living frugally and accumulating wealth. It discourages saving a…

The limits for the estate tax in the US are pretty high. It's over $20 million if you are married. That means those who are hard working and frugal will most likely never pay an estate tax. Hard work and frugality will allow you to slowly accumulate several million dollars over your life.

At the wealth levels at which the estate tax applies, a fair amount of luck has to factor in. Having been in the right place at the right time. That has little to do with morality because many other people had the same behaviors but never got lucky. The estate tax is more a tax on luck than it is on hard work and frugality.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#316

Post by BorisMelnik »

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!

agree, naming something after yourself is tacky. but having that much clout that someone names something after you is baller.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#317

Post by munificent »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #112
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.

>If you let billionaires make the choices then sure you get some like Feeney/Gates/Buffett but you get Koch brothers. You just disagree with the things the Kochs choose to fund. You could have easily said Murdoch instead (or Bloomberg if you wanted to pick someone who's hate crosses party lines). Were the government funding the causes these billionaires fund the causes would still be controversial. We just wouldn't h…

> You just disagree with the things the Kochs choose to fund.

Sure, and I'm also not a fan of Jeffrey Dahmer's taste in fine dining, but I don't think it is reasonable to chalk that up to a mere difference of appetite.

> Were the government funding the causes these billionaires fund the causes would still be controversial.

Were the government funding those causes we could stop funding them because they are horrible and people hate them.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#318

Post by csomar »

bedhead wrote: post #240

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…

I don't get it, the Rockefeller family has an estimated net worth of $11bn today. That's for 174 members of this family or around $63m per family. While not a small amount, it's not outrageous either; especially that it's an old family, so they haven't really accumulated lots of wealth. You'd think compound interest would have made them own much more than that.

On the other hand, Bezos, a single person, has control of a $1.58T company and you are totally okay with it?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#319

Post by cabaalis »

megablast wrote: post #305
mensetmanusman wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess the counter question is whether there is something virtuous about spending all your money before you die.

Well, you are putting your money back into society, creating jobs. So yes. That is better then not doing those things.

People with money don't put it all under a mattress. It's active in the economy, creating jobs.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#320

Post by myself248 »

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…

I've noticed that this sort of naming-rights philanthropy correlates with certain cultures, too. I know when I'm driving along 11 mile and see a bunch of buildings with people's names on them, the good deli is just a few blocks further. ;)

I concur, it's not a bad thing. I actually think it helps motivate others to do likewise -- generosity in the shadows doesn't help set a cultural expectation or contribute to a pattern. Generosity in foot-high letters is hard to ignore, and it's still generosity. And tacky though it may seem, I think it's actually wonderful and I'd like to find ways to encourage it more broadly.

The downside (because there's always a downside) is that names _encode_ identity, and if your name isn't like all the names you see on all the buildings in this part of town, you might start to feel like you don't belong here. There are a lot of subtle things that can encourage or neutralize that perception, but having names emblazoned all over the place is sort of an enabling factor. So along with encouraging philanthropy, I think we should be looking at ways to make sure it doesn't get turned exclusionary.

Post reply on HN