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

341–350 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#341

Post by mstratman »

jakeva wrote: post #310
pyronik19 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a "free" society, what basis does society have a right to say how much stuff you can amass? That or we stop pretending we live in a free society. I want society out of my business... if I want to give it away that's my choice.. if I want my kids to live like kings that's also my choice.

In a "free" society, what basis does society have to say how much stuff you owe based on your income each year? Or that you have to keep your sidewalk clear of snow each winter? Or that you can't just leave your car wherever you want? What about amassing as much stuff as possible selling controlled substances and brokering crime? If you want society completely out of your business, you're going to have a hard time.

Limits on property ownership are a very different topic than taxation or crime.

They are treated fundamentally different in law, economics, and philosophy.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#343

Post by throwaway0a5e »

jakeva wrote: post #310
pyronik19 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a "free" society, what basis does society have a right to say how much stuff you can amass? That or we stop pretending we live in a free society. I want society out of my business... if I want to give it away that's my choice.. if I want my kids to live like kings that's also my choice.

In a "free" society, what basis does society have to say how much stuff you owe based on your income each year? Or that you have to keep your sidewalk clear of snow each winter? Or that you can't just leave your car wherever you want? What about amassing as much stuff as possible selling controlled substances and brokering crime? If you want society completely out of your business, you're going to have a hard time.

You say that like that as though you're not just uncharitably describing what's basically a libertarian paradise.

There are tons of people who want exactly what you find so abhorrent.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#344

Post by georgeecollins »

smillbag wrote: post #268
settrans wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think it is virtuous to plan and prepare for your own security and the security of those who depend on you. But beyond that (like if you are rich enough for financial security to not matter much) I don't think it is inherently virtuous to save.

People used to argue that saving (investing) is better for the economy than spending (consumption). That's an argument for a lower capital gains tax. But you could argue the US has gone too far in favor of investors, at the expense of consumption. Presumably more $ in the hands of the 1% = more investment, more $ in the hands of the lower 50% = more consumption.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#345

Post by Djvacto »

newsclues wrote: post #303
sokoloff wrote: post #288

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

I think the frugal living they're talking about is not in the venn diagram overlap of those accumulating Billions of Dollars.

My understanding is that the point would be to not tax someone leaving a much less significant amount to their children, in the case of either an untimely or expected death, and rather using more targeted methods to prevent the accumulation of billions, like taxing those who accumulate billions.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#346

Post by nugget »

pyronik19 wrote: post #287
tasty_freeze wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two reasons to support a hefty inheritance tax on wealth over $X million. First, it raises revenue to help fill the deficit. More importantly, it is friction against generational wealth. Bill Gates (and his father) have for decades supported inheritance tax and gave this as the explicit reason.

In a "free" society, what basis does society have a right to say how much stuff you can amass? That or we stop pretending we live in a free society. I want society out of my business... if I want to give it away that's my choice.. if I want my kids to live like kings that's also my choice.

Your definition of freedom is just anarchy. The obvious question: What's to stop somebody from murdering you and taking your wealth?

The same objective (or subjective, take your pick) morality that discourages robbery-murder can effortlessly extend to the distribution of wealth in society. An objective moralist once said: "Render unto Caesar...". A subjective moralist could say: "whatever minimizes human suffering and maximizes human opportunities" which leaves policy-makers with a broad canvas.

Personally I don't think this is a particularly moral issue, except near the extremes; but even if it were, the answer isn't what you're hoping for.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#347

Post by MichaelGlass »

clinta wrote: post #297
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?

Those who "hoard" wealth do not do so by filling a swimming pool with gold coins like Scrooge McDuck. They invest in companies that provide jobs and the goods and services that the rest of us enjoy. Yes that is virtuous.

Those who "invest in companies" need somewhere to put their excess money. That demand for credit is likely responsible for downstream financial crises. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40854-019-0136-2

I like Milton Friedman too, he had a cool show on PBS, but history isn't going to be good for that guy.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#348

Post by cscurmudgeon »

smillbag wrote: post #268
settrans wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Is there something virtuous about not creating wealth?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#349

Post by caturopath »

woofie11 wrote: post #322
caturopath wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a common viewpoint, but quite different from OP's. $5000 can save a person from Malaria or it can buy all the history teachers at a first world school document cameras. No doubt, both are worthy causes, but if you are choosing between which change to make in the world, one thought is to choose things like the former, which are seen to do more good for the same resources.

Well, to be fair, I know people and projects in the developing world, and buy things for (or give money to) people there too. I've also seen the impact of organizations which promise to spend money to save people there, and it's not always pretty. You can't serve two causes well. Picking between Western donors and local recipients, successful NGOs must choose to serve the former and not the latter. That often just di…

To be frank, with that attitude, we'd never make better decisions ever. We'd always see that things get complicated quick.

Things ARE complicated. Teams spend time navigating the questions and coming up with their best answers - the poster who started this thread posted a site that has done that exercise https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/giving-recommendations/

They have a model, and they can iterate on that model as they get new information or insights. It's hard for me to think that their model is worse than my lack of model.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#350

Post by winston_smith »

danenania wrote: post #302
settrans wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I sort of agree with this in the sense that the estate tax seems like a distraction from the larger and vastly more important challenge of implementing a broadly fair, progressive, and efficient system of taxation. With a better system, we shouldn't have to introduce one-off taxes for "special events" like death because extreme concentrations of wealth should already be heavily and unavoidably taxed--passing wealth t…

> extreme concentrations of wealth should already be heavily and unavoidably taxed

Unfortunately, government is already the most extreme concentration of wealth in the history of mankind, spending $8 trillion dollars a year in the USA alone, of which $1 trillion (that's 1,000 billionaire fortunes, or bankrupting Jeff Bezos 5x over, every year) goes straight to the military.

Post reply on HN