Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke • Hacker News Board

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#421

Post by totalZero » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 8:57 PM UTC

orangejewce wrote: post #332

myself248 wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To be fair, cultures have characteristics and people should be permitted by their peers to talk about those characteristics in a thoughtful way.

I'm not familiar with what the other guy is describing, nor do I have any opinion on this particular topic. I'm just saying that "people of X culture tend to do Y thing more than the average person" is not in itself a hateful or disrespectful comment.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#422

Post by Jabbles » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 8:58 PM UTC

akhosravian wrote: post #335

csours wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Amer…

Not enough to live on the passive income even in the cheapest parts of the globe.

Why do you think that is the right metric? 3.4T is obviously a vast amount of money.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#423

Post by heimatau » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 8:58 PM UTC

dougmccune wrote: post #8

sudhirj wrote: post #6

This is a role model I can actually appreciate. I can't figure out why this is the first time I've heard of him. I've seen lots of news about people buying expensive shit, but the fact that this has never come to my attention is a horrible indicator of what the media chooses to report on.

> While many wealthy philanthropists enlist an army of publicists to trumpet their donations, Feeney went to great lengths to keep his gifts secret. Seems like that was by design.

> Seems like that was by design.

Yup. Even Adam Smith talked about this, it helps propel the capitalist system.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#424

Post by lotsofpulp » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 8:59 PM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #408

lotsofpulp wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a shame that all donations aren't anonymous. The government should at least take away the tax deductibility of non anonymous donations.

Wouldn't the reduce the amount of donations greatly? Gotta think most people do it at least partly for recognition, otherwise there'd be nothing noteworthy about the article we're discussing.

I would get rid of all tax deductions period, but in the case of non anonymous donations, the chance of quid pro quo and inability to prove it is so high, that I just view it as a tax loophole for the rich.

If it lowers the amount people donate, then it proves my point...that people were intending to get something in return, hence not a donation.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#425

Post by MisterBastahrd » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 9:00 PM UTC

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #226

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of my arguments against the accumulation of vast wealth is that Bill Gates can get an in-person visit with my local representative faster than I, a constituent, can get a return phone call. I think we need 5x the number of representatives at the House level. Separate their duties, strip power from some of them, and keep them in district most of the year so they can actually be held accountable. Would also help to…

> I think we need 5x the number of representatives at the House level. Separate their duties, strip power from some of them, and keep them in district most of the year so they can actually be held accountable. That is a a great idea. One idea along those lines, is maybe make the House entirely online with the representatives being in the district 100% of the time. It would do a couple of things. It would make lobbyin…

That mostly works, but intelligence committees, etc. need to be in secure locations to view documents.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#426

Post by jedberg » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 9:03 PM UTC

thinkharderdev wrote: post #387

jedberg wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I'm not sure that's the case at all. And even if they did assume that they got the full value, they would be quickly corrected of that belief when they actually filed their taxes.

Having volunteered to help people fill out their taxes, I think you vastly overestimate people's abilities to understand complex math. Most people just don't understand how deductions or graduated tax brackets work, even after having it explained to them.

Also, it's hidden. If you used TurboTax for example, you put all your numbers in and get a number out. All you've heard is "donations are deductible" but there really is no obvious connection to putting in your donations and seeing how much it saves you.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#427

Post by lordnacho » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 9:04 PM UTC

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…

This is beside the point, but how can you see when someone is down-voted? I don't see any scores for other people's comments.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#428

Post by progman32 » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 9:05 PM UTC

mrosett wrote: post #405

progman32 wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those who can't spot the subtlety, can you explain what you mean?

Many delis are Jewish. He's saying that whenever he sees buildings named after people, he's in a Jewish neighborhood. In context, it plays into nasty stereotypes about Jews being obsessed with money.

Thank you.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#429

Post by haltingproblem » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 9:05 PM UTC

The amount of negativity in this thread regarding billionaires and charity is stupefying. There are well established reasons why the distribution of wealth is lumpy - the uneven distribution of initial endowments, skills, parenting, luck, education, etc. The work of Pareto and the Ergodicity Economics gives a sound theoretical basis to this realization. There is no middle ground folks - in any incentive driven system you will have a power tailed distribution.

Can we just celebrate Chuck Feeney and his awesomeness?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#430

Post by notatoad » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 9:05 PM UTC

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.

>That or we stop pretending we live in a free society.

yes, let's do that. we don't - there has never been such thing as a free society, and we don't live in one now. all society has rules - without rules, it's not a society anymore. Let's once and for all take away this absurd escape-hatch where one can avoid defending an idea on it's merits by claiming it restricts their freedom.

If we truly lived in a free society, we wouldn't have estate law at all - wheover kills you should simply claim all your property.