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

451–460 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#451

Post by divbzero »

haltingproblem wrote: post #429

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…

“What many don't know is that [Mark Benioff] 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).”

“I wonder if I ever will have the strength to do what he has done.”

“I’ve long argued for massive estate tax rates on large estates in order to incentivize behavior like this.”

“This is a role model I can actually appreciate.“

“I humbly encourage everyone to make giving a larger part of your life.”

Those are quotes from the current top 5 comments in this thread — plenty of celebration of Chuck Feeney’s awesomeness.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#452

Post by paulpauper »

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…

This would hurt family owned businesses. Under such a system, within a family, everyone would keep their money to themselves. Let's say your dad wants to open a restaurant, so you donate $1 million, and the business does well, but then he unexpectedly dies and the his net worth is assessed at $5 million. Now you are out $1 million due to the tax. pretty bad deal.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#453

Post by aj7 »

teruakohatu wrote: post #383
gringoDan wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we must remind ourselves that this is unimpressive compared to the poor person who donates $25 to others while starving herself Is it? This is a very Christian way of looking at donations: personal sacrifice / self-deprivation is what matters. [1] However, utilitarians – notably Effective Altruists [2] – would make the opposite argument: what matters is the impact that you make with the dollars you donate (both in…

Gates' wealth keeps increasing. Sure he gives a lot away but, but he is making 1+ billion per year above what he gives away. It is great that money is going to charity, it is great that money previously belonging to Gates' is going to charity, but I would be far more impressed by you if you donated $100/year to the Internet Archive than I am if Bill Gates donated $100 million. In other words, I don't think anyone cla…

It is impressive that he and his wife cleaned themselves out and live frugally.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#454

Post by lucideer »

winston_smith wrote: post #393
lucideer wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The very first commenter on that article really says it best (and succinctly): > I feel this is one of your lesser thought out pieces. I mean false equivalencies are rampant in it. but... if we must, a few hard counterpoints: > 1. Is criticizing billionaire philanthropy a good way to protest billionaires having too much power in society? This point misrepresents how journalism & counter-criticism occur. People critic…

> People criticize billionaires. Full stop. Criticism of their philanthropy is not selective... And Scott's point is that non-selective criticism is dumb. If you don't want your dog to chew the carpet, criticizing your dog, full stop, as you say, is a terrible strategy. If you're opposed to dogs or people richer than you in principle, then you can make that claim too I guess. But you won't get much sympathy if you do…

> And Scott's point is that non-selective criticism is dumb

That's a reasonable point to make, but... I don't think I saw Scott making it. Are you sure that was Scott's point, or is it yours?

> criticizing your dog, full stop, as you say, is a terrible strategy

I guess this depends on our definition of "criticising" and it's intent. If you're sitting at home, shouting at your dog, I'm not sure that's particularly productive. If you're having a conversation with a peer, and expressing your frustration at your dog chewing carpet, you may perhaps combine forces to arrive at some solutions to your carpet problems.

You can argue that perhaps discussing the plight of billionaires amongst peers (or even random folk on the internet) is equivalent to sitting at home shouting at your dog, but I think that's a debate for a different day.

Point being: I doubt many "criticising" the billionaires/dogs are expecting them to listen. They're discussing problems (and potential solutions?) in a more general sense by criticising a system/event that exists/occurs.

> do you just think that billionaires are evil

Are you proposing that dogs chewing carpets are evil? I presume not, but I presume you still want to save your carpet.

Billionaires are not necessarily "evil" in intent in the absolute sense. What I am proposing is that their existence is a problem needing solving in and of itself.

The existence of billionaires (or anyone who holds more economic resources than are needed to be content... I think that stands somewhere around the ~$150k mark according to some studies... certainly far short of whatever number of millions/pa leads to billion-level assets) necessitates that those resources have been withheld from someone who has less than are needed to be content (in many cases, to survive).

---

It may be worth noting that Feeney has gone about solving this exact problem (the existence of billionaires), albeit in a very individual way (making 1 billionaire no longer a non-billionaire). Which is quite an remarkable and laudable achievement, even if that billionaire was himself.

(and that's before we get into the very far-reaching, and—in my own experience—enormously positive impact, of his philanthropy)

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#455

Post by golemiprague »

totalZero wrote: post #421
orangejewce wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I got no problem with a bit of healthy stereotyping, what annoys me that many times it is stereotyping from an American point view, which is only true for the US and many times wrong and ignorant in general. Then this American way of viewing the world is trickling to the rest of the world via culture and it is just plain wrong or nonsensical. Especially when it comes to the way Americans view groups of people like whites includes middle easterners, hispanics must be some Mexican or DR/PR, Italians are mafia or guidos, all this kind of stuff which is very US oriented but has no relation to reality, even in the US itself.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#456

Post by MisterBastahrd »

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.

Why should your kid have dominion over mine just because you became a billionaire? No society is truly free. That's antithetical the the idea of a society.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#457

Post by Ericson2314 »

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?

Virtue should be paying your goddamn taxes, and donating the rest to the government (i.e. destroying it, to offset other inflationary measures the people elect to enact).

Anything else is either an affront to democracy, or at best is is morally neutral. E.g. what this guy did is morally neutral, and only good relative to the Carnegie knockoffs trying to launder their reputation.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#458

Post by [deleted] »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #374
dumbfounder wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's a shame. I have never heard of him. How many could he inspire if he was more vocal? But, to each their own.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#459

Post by unethical_ban »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #424
lordnacho wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So it's better that a hospital not get Beinhoff's hundred million dollars, since you don't like his need for legacy?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#460

Post by oefnak »

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.

I think you're reading into it too much. He specifically said he thinks it is not a bad thing. In your opinion, is it possible to say anything about your culture without being anti-semitic?
Post reply on HN