Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke • Hacker News Board

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#491

Post by haltingproblem » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 9:55 PM UTC

divbzero wrote: post #451

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 humb…

I saw those but there was the usual jaw-boning if Billionaire philanthrophy is good for our society. I understand the hand-wringing but that is akin to wishing that we were all born equal to perfect families in strife free lands with perfect health care and child care and the rest.......utopia.

Edit: See below ;)

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#492

Post by tayo42 » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

somethoughts wrote: post #484

davinic wrote: post #438

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could also just tax the income used to make the donations at similar levels to prior top brackets and not depend on philanthropy as a means to fund public institutions or social safety nets.

Perhaps a slight twist on that would be to be if society as a whole considered paying taxes as if it were "pay it forward" philanthropy. In fact if the government recognized honest taxpayers as if they were forward thinking "philanthropic donors" (replete with award dinners for the million dollar donors) - perhaps there'd be more excitement for April 15th - and such people would not be so quick to figure out ways to…

It would help if we could decide what our taxes got allocated to directly. Like 50‰ nasa 0% racist border wall. I hate paying my taxes because it's going to bullshit like that federally. Or locally, funding mismanaged pensions.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#493

Post by Waterluvian » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 9:58 PM UTC

It reassures me that there are examples of people who get hyper rich and retain some perspective on it.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#494

Post by dfxm12 » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 10:00 PM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #427

javajosh wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Comment text gets lighter and lighter the more downvotes it gets.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#495

Post by rurp » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 10:02 PM UTC

lordnacho wrote: post #427

javajosh wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm guessing the comment text turned a shade of gray, which happens when the count goes negative. Though it's back to the normal shade currently, meaning it's back above negative territory.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#496

Post by jamestimmins » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 10:05 PM UTC

phaus wrote: post #489

jandrese wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Chariti…

Not sure if it was the case for Chuck, but a small percentage Christians strongly believe that charity should be anonymous because it actually says as much in the bible. I'm not a Christian myself and definitely not rich at all, but I do prefer anonymous donations.

I think this is actually the norm amongst Christians. It just seems like the minority because by nature these folks aren't talking about it.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#497

Post by mactrey » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 10:07 PM UTC

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.

Sitting on billions of dollars in stock in a publicly traded company isn't really all that different from having a swimming pool full of gold coins. The day-to-day functioning of that company is not going to be affected if the billionaire sells shares to pay taxes rather than giving the shares to their children. An initial investment in a company is virtuous but once you have billions keeping that money in the family isn't really virtuous given that the alternative is contributing to the society that made the initial investment possible.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#498

Post by wombatmobile » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 10:09 PM UTC

BrainInAJar wrote: post #59

dougmccune wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. 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…

> Feeney worked in private equity. PR are strip & sell firms.

Chuck Feeney didn't work in PE, and he wasn't one of those creatures you despise. He invented Duty Free Shopping in WWII, selling booze, smokes and cars to returning servicemen. He pioneered airport shopping, doing all the hard, clever work himself, and spent the bulk of his life giving the billions earned to good causes anonymously.

Why? He didn't care about money or reputation. He wanted to make the world a better place.

Wikipedia Bio of Chuck Feeney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Feeney

Biography of Chuck Feeney https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2842145-the-billionaire-...

> Philanthropy exists to launder the reputations of the rich

It can be used that way, but Chuck Feeney didn't need or want that. That's why he gave anonymously right up until international money laundering regulations post 9/11 forced him to reveal his identity.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#499

Post by AQuantized » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 10:09 PM UTC

settrans wrote: post #261

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…

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 idea that inheritance tax is a 'death tax' seems like an inaccurate pejorative. The recipient of wealth is the one being taxed, there is no extant individual whose death is being taxed. In almost all large transfers of wealth we have some amount of taxation. If inheritance tax is the exception, it encourage dynasties to hoard wealth to confer the associate power and status on their families.

This wealth would be more efficiently allocated by the innovators of new generations. It is true that the economy isn't a zero sum game, but we can't pretend that so much new pie is created each generation that dynasties hogging the majority doesn't preclude new, more innovative money, from establishing the positions they might otherwise we allowed to, for the benefit of all participants in the economy. The velocity of money matters, and allowing dynasties to guard their wealth indefinitely is bad for everyone.

This also pretends that capital confers no significant power. The reality is that the inheritors of the ultra rich will also inherit their ability to influence society. While not ideal that the ultra rich themselves have this ability to the extent that they do, to be able confer it on an almost arbitrary set of individuals is additionally hazardous, as they have not set themselves apart from other individuals on any meritorious basis.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#500

Post by kbenson » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 10:10 PM UTC

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.

> or hidden away as art investments inside of storage containers.

That doesn't make any sense. They pay for that art, and the money goes to the people that owned the art previously. Either they stick it into an account in the Caymans, or a regular/investment account, or they just have it available, but purchasing assets with it is not money hidden away as an art investment.

A significant amount of wealth may be in assets, but that's the same for most people that's aren't poor (i.e. that own a house). The money used to purchase those assets is still circulating though.