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

471–480 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#471

Post by [deleted] »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #280
Balgair wrote: post #246

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…

Most of the worlds money is sitting in the Cayman’s after-all, or hidden away as art investments inside of storage containers.

[deleted]

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#472

Post by lotsofpulp »

unethical_ban wrote: post #459
lotsofpulp wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If society wants the hospital to exist and have funding, then society can decide to raise taxes to pay for it.

I don't care about Benioff's need for legacy. I care about reducing corruption, which non anonymous tax deductible donations enable.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#473

Post by lotsofpulp »

unethical_ban wrote: post #461
Ericson2314 wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely a good comment. Tax the rich, replace philanthropy with Democracy. Pathetic that PP is getting downvotes.

Get off the high horse. He didn't explain his original position at all, and frankly it's an ideal that seems very unrealistic. I agree that we should be taxing the ultra-rich a lot more, but "prohibiting donations that have names attached" is legislating morality as much as "don't buy liquor on Sundays".

I never wrote non anonymous donations should be prohibited.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#474

Post by lotsofpulp »

jcheng wrote: post #463
lotsofpulp wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unless there's actual corruption involved (like giving to a "charity" that actually fuels your personal expenses), how could a deductible gift be used a tax loophole? I've heard the misconception that one could use a deduction to bump yourself into a lower tax rate on your entire income, and therefore come out ahead, but that's not how U.S. federal income tax rates work.

Donate to a selective school, and your descendants get higher probability of admission.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#476

Post by TheJoeMan »

amatic wrote: post #466
jandrese wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Oh, the old "I gave anonymously, but they still know my name" trick. Larry David had this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAKrb9b4s28

Actually gotta agree with you on this one. While it is nice to read what exactly he helped, if I know it it’s not “anonymous”

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#477

Post by jandrese »

dumbfounder wrote: post #351
jandrese wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Donating anonymously is a way of avoiding ending up on the mailing list of every charity in the country.

While it wasn't so important in this case because as a former billionaire I assume he had people at a foundation who's job it was to handle his correspondence, but if you are a regular person looking to make a donation it's often a good idea to keep your name and contact info out of it as much as possible. Charities can be really bad about selling your name.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#478

Post by thelock85 »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #409
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.

Making a very public show of philanthropy as a means of self-promotion or self-aggrandizement isn't awesome, though frankly if letting people feel good with a little recognition results in more donations then that seems well worth it. But there are other reasons to make a public show of philanthropy: to encourage others to give, to be a part of giving campaigns, to draw attention to an issue you consider important, t…

Ultimately there are too many causes in need of support for me to take a strong stance on this, but it’s worth pointing out that many a tycoon has utilized philanthropy to maintain a positive image when business dealings run counter to the prevailing social concerns.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#479

Post by [deleted] »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #472
unethical_ban wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

If society wants the hospital to exist and have funding, then society can decide to raise taxes to pay for it. I don't care about Benioff's need for legacy. I care about reducing corruption, which non anonymous tax deductible donations enable.

[deleted]

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#480

Post by tasty_freeze »

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.

Have you ever played monopoly? We are far along the path to the same type of conclusion -- one or a few people owning everything and setting all the rules, with everyone else living marginally and unable to avoid incurring further wealth extraction from the winners of the game.

The government is there, supposedly, for the benefit of a healthy society, not to enforce some capitalists' idea of what they think is fair. It is the same reason why the rules change for a company when it becomes a monopoly (there is that word again).

"I want society out of my business."

This sounds like the libertarian mindset that takes for granted all the benefits that come from being a business operating in a healthy society.

Although worker productivity has gone up tremendously over the past 40 years, nearly all of the incremental gains in wealth has accrued to a small fraction of the population. Yet that form of unfairness doesn't ruffle the people who think taxation is theft.

Post reply on HN