431–440 of 875 posts
One of the things almost all foundations do is this: give 100K for $100M problem. There are certain reasons for this: (a) foundations have become mini governments; (b) foundations want to support everyone that comes their way; (c) either foundations can't judge the potential of ventures or they end up supporting their crony or pet projects.
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.
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!
One could argue that everyone has the same responsibilities to society at large. Thus for every Chuck Feeny and Bill Gates, you, personally you, have an obligation to create many billion dollars of value and give it away. If you don't do that, you're worse than any evil billionaire you care to name. They at least are paying millions of dollars in taxes for any money they pull out of investments. How many millions in…
Yes you could argue that.
> Thus for every Chuck Feeny and Bill Gates, you, personally you, have an obligation to create many billion dollars of value and give it away
Now that is a big jump. It does not follow that we all have the same responsibility that we all have a specific responsibility.
Historically some rights were tied to the ability of the upper classes to fulfill some base responsibilities that the lower the classes could never possibly meet. Such as being able to afford a full set of bronze armour and a spear. Thus achieving both moral and social superiority.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A lot of people only donate to reduce their tax bill. It's still money gone from your pocket. It doesn't save you money overall.
It's not about saving money. As this thread shows, charity is akin to a good PR move. Paying taxes is seen as neutral, at best. If you're "spending" either way, you might as well get something for it.
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…
Ah, yes, such a shame that the only way to spend a fortune is on caviar and jetskis.
This is a purposefully obtuse take. We have specific tax structures to incentivize charitable giving, building businesses, creating things to benefit others.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not doubting you for a second[0], but I didn’t see anything anti-Semitic in that post, so am I missing some internet meme or American cultural reference? [0] Footnote in case it is necessary: antisemitism must be stamped out wherever it is found.
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.