Live data from Hacker News

Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

forbes.com

331–340 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO: There's something virtuous about living beneath your means and ensuring that you can be self-sufficient in your retirement. There's something virtuous about living beneath your means and ensuring that, at a minimum, you are not a burden to your family, but that ideally you provide them support rather than siphoning support from them. In order to do that, it's almost a given that you will die with money left over…

You speak of frugal living, but why live frugally amassing great wealth? There is a difference between having money to be self sufficient and sitting on billions of dollars

My money, my choice.

As long as taxes are paid, it's nobody's business what I do with my money, as long as what I do is not illegal.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pat…

Wow dude, if you're going to be anti-semitic, just do it. Don't bother trying to be "cute", or "subtle" using emojis. Really pathetic.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#333
post #283

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?

I don't have an answer, but to flip that question: If the very wealthy can live on passive income from accumulated wealth, then why can't all of society?

You need a large amount of capital for it to do enough good for others (e.g. via investments into companies) that the returns you receive are enough to live on.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#334

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 understand your sentiment. But the highest marginal estate tax rate is currently 40%, for amounts above $1M (after deducting applicable exemptions). That seems high enough. The problem is that the estate tax system is so complex, so full of loopholes and tricks, that no truly rich person with 2 brain cells and a competent estate lawyer will pay a fraction of that 40% tax.

I don't know what the solution is, but it seems to me that the estate tax system is overly complex, too open to abuse, and needs to be simplified. It is unfortunately intertwined with Trust laws, Probate laws, Income tax laws, international tax treaties, etc. As far as I can tell, the estate tax exists only because of the "stepped up cost basis" feature in the US tax code, where all capital gains is zeroed out upon death by increasing the cost basis of the asset to the current market value. (Does any other country have this?)

I think it would be simpler to eliminate Stepped Up Cost Basis, and replace the estate tax with something like a "deemed disposition" tax, where the capital gains tax is paid upon death (above a certain exemption amount, say $5M/couple), or paid upon transfer to another non-pass-through legal entity (e.g. an irrevocable trust). Oh, we should also eliminate the long-term capital gains tax rate, and all capital gains should be taxed at the same rate as earned income. I think this would eliminate the "carried interest" loophole. Oh, and we should eliminate Dynasty Trusts, which can last as long as 365 years. It's hard to see how allowing a Trust to last 365 years is good public policy. Oh, and so many other loopholes need to be closed.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is much political will to tackle these issues. Estate tax law is a very obscure part of the tax code. Very few people care, except for the small number of ultra wealthy people and their lawyers who are taking full advantage of the current system.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#335
post #283

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?

I don't have an answer, but to flip that question: If the very wealthy can live on passive income from accumulated wealth, then why can't all of society?

Let's liquidate all US billionaires and spread that money to every person in the US. Let's also set aside the question of how one could legally liquidate the billionaires.

Per https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/05/21/the-net-wo... the combined net worth of every US billionaire was 3.4 trillion in May of this year. Per https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/3-ways-that-the-u-s-popu... there were 331 million Americans in January of this year.

Dividing that out: $10,271.90 per person. Not enough to live on the passive income even in the cheapest parts of the globe.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#336

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!

Why name it after anything? "UCSF Children's Hospital" tells you everything you need to know.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#337

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…

[deleted]

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#338

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…

From the article:

> And he gave it away anonymously. While many wealthy philanthropists enlist an army of publicists to trumpet their donations, Feeney went to great lengths to keep his gifts secret.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#339
post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people frame this as ‘earning to give’: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earning_to_give

"Earning to give" doesn't mean you have to earn in dishonest fashion.

You can't become a billionaire through honest earnings. The degree is variable but the presence is inevitable, becoming required more the more billions you amass. Of course, you can take the ethical route, but those people don't get the billions.
Post reply on HN