Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke • Hacker News Board

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#501

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

jb188 wrote: post #443

JoshTriplett wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah, there's a misconception that it is more morally righteous to give quietly than to give and take credit and that's debatable. $100M is a $100M whether the person is anonymous or not and if not, it can lead to more of the same, even if the motivation is self-aggrandizement. I mean, take that out to a long conclusion and you get a society who's competing to give away the most instead of possess the most.

Names everywhere could just as easily mean a culture that celebrates wealth and the wealthy as superior to others, because after all, their names are everywhere. A happenstance donation by a rich person in this society may mean far more than a significant donation by someone less well off. This may create a culture where people see helping others as a suckers game unless you get something back, rather than a moral obligation.

On the other hand, a culture of anonymous donations (and less wealth signaling) could indicate a culture where everyone, no matter how rich or poor, is expected to do their part to help others.

It depends a lot on what people's takeaways are from these acts, which are shaped by cultural expectations and norms. One should consider the cultural externalities of donations in addition to purely the dollar amounts.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#502

Post by akira2501 » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 10:13 PM UTC

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…

> though frankly if letting people feel good with a little recognition results in more donations then that seems well worth it.

I disagree. This is an attempt to buy legacy and erase their past. It benefits only those who make the donations, and whatever causes happen to pique their particular interests. It also creates yet another organization of people dependent upon the good will and whim of a single supporter.

> to encourage others to give

I would presume the tax breaks are enough.

> and otherwise to direct that attention towards the cause rather than yourself.

Large portions of non-profit budgets are specifically spent on awareness and on generating future donations. There is no need to slap your last name on the side of a building for this purpose.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#503

Post by strken » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 10:14 PM UTC

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.

It's like the government is matching your donations, and in the case of certain charities, that means the government is effectively funding lobbyists for you.

"Loopholes" are often in the eye of the beholder.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#504

Post by wombatmobile » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 10:16 PM UTC

janee wrote: post #402

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.

Good example of why I really like HN. Quite keen to read up more on Feeny. Reading about anonymous contributions and selfless behavior like this is such a mood lifter when trawling through the day to day news and information floating around

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-...

For a great read, and to get a sense of who Chuck Feeney really is, track down a copy of Hugh Lunn's book The Great Fletch, the story of Chuck's mate Ken Fletcher from his Hong Kong days.

https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/the-great-fletch-story-of-a-tenn...

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#505

Post by AQuantized » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 10:16 PM UTC

wang_li wrote: post #485

AQuantized wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like a strange argument since someone who is say, running a large conglomerate, benefits much more from society's infrastructure and organization than a layperson. It then seems reasonable for their obligation to be proportionally greater.

In the US, according to the CBO[0], the people who are in the top two quintiles of income pay for all services and infrastructure. Saying that these people benefit more from this infrastructure than a middle income household is very odd. It's like I decide to be a farmer and need more water, so I dig a well to water my farm. Then my neighbor sees the well and asks if they can get drinking water from it and I say sure…

Their large incomes are made possible by infrastructure. The analogy doesn't make much sense to me since even the most prolific billionaire didn't build much of this infrastructure.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#506

Post by yholio » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 10:17 PM UTC

If you want to have the most impact in your secret donations and change the lives of many people in good, then you should finance democratic and peaceful political underdogs in poor and represive countries.

I know it sounds revolting that giving money to politicians is better than fighting malaria or cancer. But at the end of the day, those who are having the most impact in alleviating poverty and disease are not international philanthropists, but the governments of the respective countries. Misery is the result of the lack of institutions or their systemic failure under corrupt, inefficient and incompetent leaders. We have known for decades how to eradicate malaria and provide all people on Earth with basic food, shelter and education, what we lack is world-wide execution of essential state-building and infrastructure that would enable it, and much more.

And money is a fundamental part of politics; politicians are just like any other people: if a decent, respectable living an be made in the field of politics, public office will attract decent and respectable people. If the only way you can get into power is by making trades with the devil, since no one will found politics, then what you get is corrupt and ineffective leaders that oppress rather the serve the public.

This is why, for all his sins, George Soros remains one of the most effective philanthropists in the world. And this is why he's vilified by a whole wagon of authoritarians, from Putin to Orban to Jinping: they know that the most pressing threat to their power is not some foreign country, or a political or military international alliance; they are most afraid of a well funded and cohesive internal political opposition that can properly articulate the public discontent.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#507

Post by bjustin » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 10:18 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…

Great, let's be rid of all this nonsense and let the income tax cover inheritance like any other transfer of wealth.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#508

Post by strbean » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 10:20 PM UTC

lucaspm98 wrote: post #286

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?

Virtuous is subjective, but there is the age old goal of leaving the next generation better off than yours. It seems like a personal choice of whether to spend money responsibly, spend frivolously, give it away, or pass it on to whoever you want at any time to do any of those options. I'm not sure where I stand on a wealth tax, but I would always be hesitant to tax money that in theory was already taxed when earned.…

> but there is the age old goal of leaving the next generation better off than yours

Hopefully we can strike a balance between leaving only your direct descendants better off and leaving everyone in the next generation better off.

> I would always be hesitant to tax money that in theory was already taxed when earned

This is incompatible with having an income tax and any other tax. Although, income tax isn't exactly well loved by economists, so maybe there is something to that.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#509

Post by longtimegoogler » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 10:21 PM UTC

nemo44x wrote: post #211

longtimegoogler wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. I think the greatest ill of our society is the death of the middle class and the widening gap between the haves and the have nots. Some suggest that taxation is the answer but maybe another answer is for companies to distribute their wealth more widely.

The middle class hasn't died at all. In fact it is larger today than ever before. It's just a bad narrative people have bought into. [1] In essence what has happened as the upper-middle class has grown over the last 40 years. Poor, lower-middle and regular middle class percentage has shrunk to its lowest levels. We have fewer poor people than ever before. But because the upper middle class has grown so much, middle c…

Interesting hypothesis. Thanks for the article. I will have to stew on this. It doesn't seem to jibe with the all angst about class that people seem to be feeling.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#510

Post by rhino369 » Tue, Sep 15, 2020, 10:22 PM UTC

woobar wrote: post #481

jacquesm wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Healthcare in the United States is perfectly designed to take your every last penny in the last 6 months of your life. If Chuck Feeney isn't actually broke today, there is a fair chance that he will be on his death bed.

At his age healthcare is covered by taxpayers, just like in most other countries.

Nursing homes are only covered longterm if you are destitute. Good places will take your assets and use them all up until it’s gone then apply for Medicaid.

Won’t pay for personal in-home nurses either.

But 2 million should buy him plenty of elder care. I would have kept 10 million just in case.