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

521–530 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#521

Post by lemmonii »

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…

>Why in the hell should the Rockefeller’s of today be billionaires?

Because we live in a system which rewards good genes, and that is a very good thing. By instituting a generational wealth tax you will be killing the human desire for wealth on a generational timescale.

Where does the money go? To other people i assume, you have now created a system where the evolutionary incentive is to leech from the system contributing as little as you can get away with. We live in such a system today but at-least there are some benefits to contributing more, those benefits are inherently that you can turn wealth into more children and transfer that wealth to them.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#522

Post by irrational »

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.

That's because you are not a billionaire. The article makes it plain that he has talked to other fellow billionaires encouraging them to do the same.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#523

Post by biztos »

gringoDan wrote: post #370
SeanLuke wrote: post #284

I vaguely recall that there are classic levels in Jewish philosophy regarding philanthropy, and among the highest is to give with no expectation of any return whatsoever: that means not only giving where it matters, but to do so anonymously, to organizations that don't benefit you (no opera companies), and to people with no ties to you. In this respect Chuck Feeney has been incredible. This is not to dismiss the like…

> 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…

I am very happy he donated all that money, and I greatly respect him for doing it without calling too much attention to himself, especially compared to others.

But it says a whole lot about Forbes that having at least $2M -- and I'm betting maybe a small apartment and a modest car and possibly even health insurance -- counts as "officially broke" in America.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#524

Post by strbean »

jackcosgrove wrote: post #326
throwaway2048 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spending money rather than accumulating it is, on the ballance, better for everyone else in the economy. Positing it as an unalloyed good to be frugal and accumulate wealth (especially at massive scale) is extremely murky at best.

The savings rate is an important contributor to economic growth because surplus permits investment. However saving can hurt growth by reducing consumption. Savings can be thought of as a steady state rate of saving that the economy has adjusted for. Saving is a higher order effect that causes an increase in the savings rate, temporarily depriving the economy of the level of consumption it expects.

I'm curious what portion of new investment goes into IPOs, additional issues, VC, etc., compared to the portion that just changes hands between fellow 'savers'.

If I buy $1mil of MSFT, I didn't contribute a cent to their payroll. I didn't create jobs, or grow anything. I just transferred $1mil to another investor, who will probably use that money to invest in AAPL.

Seems to me a huge portion of investment is just moving money around a relatively closed system akin to sports betting.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#525

Post by 7402 »

SeanLuke wrote: post #284

I vaguely recall that there are classic levels in Jewish philosophy regarding philanthropy, and among the highest is to give with no expectation of any return whatsoever: that means not only giving where it matters, but to do so anonymously, to organizations that don't benefit you (no opera companies), and to people with no ties to you. In this respect Chuck Feeney has been incredible. This is not to dismiss the like…

Maimonides defines eight levels in giving charity (tzedakah), each one higher than the preceding one.

On an ascending level, they are as follows:

8. When donations are given grudgingly.

7. When one gives less than he should, but does so cheerfully.

6. When one gives directly to the poor upon being asked.

5. When one gives directly to the poor without being asked.

4. Donations when the recipient is aware of the donor's identity, but the donor still doesn't know the specific identity of the recipient.

3. Donations when the donor is aware to whom the charity is being given, but the recipient is unaware of the source.

2. Giving assistance in such a way that the giver and recipient are unknown to each other. Communal funds, administered by responsible people are also in this category.

1. The highest form of charity is to help sustain a person before they become impoverished by offering a substantial gift in a dignified manner, or by extending a suitable loan, or by helping them find employment or establish themselves in business so as to make it unnecessary for them to become dependent on others.

[0] https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/eight-levels-of-charita...

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#526

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

> “ Where did $8 billion go? Feeney gave $3.7 billion to education, including nearly $1 billion to his alma mater, Cornell, which he attended on the G.I. Bill. More than $870 million went to human rights and social change, like $62 million in grants to abolish the death penalty in the U.S. and $76 million for grassroots campaigns supporting the passage of Obamacare. He gave more than $700 million in gifts to health ranging from a $270 million grant to improve public healthcare in Vietnam to a $176 million gift to the Global Brain Health Institute at the University of California, San Francisco.”

What an absolute gut-punch of deeply sickening waste.

I feel extremely outraged reading. It’s a absolutely shocking waste of money. I can’t believe this is celebrated or held up as good. This is a form of basically negligent homicide.

$3.7 billion on education? $76 million to lobby for Obamacare.

How can you not instead fund known, effective charities like Against Malaria or SCI. $1 billion to a wealthy Ivy League credential mill - that’s astronomical waste.

This is the charity equivalent of seeing a lottery winner blow their money on sports cars or Vegas. This is appalling.

I mean this so sincerely. People should be sick and outraged over this degree of negligent waste.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#527

Post by bagacrap »

throwaway287391 wrote: post #79
bagacrap wrote: post #11

Extra props for doing it anonymously.

Preface: yes, absolutely, all the props in the world to this guy for doing something so thoroughly incredible and selfless and rare for the benefit of humanity. Even if I had the means, I know I'd never have the guts to do something so amazingly heroic in as extreme a way as he did. That said (i.e. time to be the irritating pedantic little asshole, but I think it's a genuine enough question about the purpose/executio…

I guess I'm more cynical than you. I see it as subtracting props to insist that your name be inscribed on the side of every structure you fund. Bill Gates and others like him are not "giving away" money, since there's practically nothing material they could buy with it in the traditional sense. Gates is trading useless wealth for social prestige. Compare to Sergey Brin, who also spends money on humanitarian efforts such as disaster relief, but takes pains to avoid headlines.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#529

Post by andrepd »

gringoDan wrote: post #483
andrepd wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course one could argue that we should not be dependent on the goodwill and grace of billionaires to choose to donate their wealth to good causes, but rather should tax fortunes at an onerous rate and put that money in public, democratic control, regardless. For each Chuck Feeny and Bill Gates how many Waltons OR Kochs do we have?

You could make that argument, and in doing so you are implicitly stating either: (a) I believe that the government will use its money to impact the world in a better way than billionaires do, or (b) I concede that (a) is false, but I don't care. It's not about the impact we make with the money, it's about dragging billionaires down. Personally, I'm interested in impact. I have little faith that paying taxes to the US…

You "concede" that (a) is false? That's quite a strong claim. At least with "the government" managing it, there's at least some degree of democratic control, accountability, scrutiny, and influence. When that management is left to private enterprise, that's not the case.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#530

Post by [deleted] »

SeanLuke wrote: post #284

I vaguely recall that there are classic levels in Jewish philosophy regarding philanthropy, and among the highest is to give with no expectation of any return whatsoever: that means not only giving where it matters, but to do so anonymously, to organizations that don't benefit you (no opera companies), and to people with no ties to you. In this respect Chuck Feeney has been incredible. This is not to dismiss the like…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN