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

551–560 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#551

Post by TimTheTinker »

superhuzza wrote: post #535
wolfhumble wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Matthew 6, 1-4 (NIV): 1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. 2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do…

It's kind of sad how it's framed in those passages - Give in secret, or God will notice and hold back some of those heavenly rewards. As if the whole thing is just a karmic ponzi scheme.

A Christian theologian would explain it this way: the point is what rewards the giver is seeking, because that is what reveals what’s in their heart as they do the outward action of giving. As one author observes, “The worth and excellency of a soul is determined by the object of its love.”

A gift given in secret is seeking the rewards truly worth having: the praise that comes from God. Those who seek that find it, because they loved what was truly worthy of love. But gifts given for others to see are seeking a reward on earth, not heaven—and that’s what they get. Either way, they’re not penalized if, say, the word gets out against their wishes. That’s not the point: God knows and judges the heart and rewards them based on what they were actually seeking.

So seeking rewards is not only categorically OK, it’s actually encouraged, but with the caveat that the seeker set their heart on what is eternally worthy of their love and desire.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#552

Post by WalterBright »

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…

But when people are publicly generous with other peoples' money, I assign negative virtue :-/

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#553

Post by nicoburns »

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…

I certainly believe (a), but there is a 3rd option

(c) I believe in direct wealth distribution (e.g. via a basic income) and that you believe 100m people with $10 will spend that money in a better way than 1 person with $1bn.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#554

Post by sokoloff »

NegativeLatency wrote: post #516
newsclues wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you don’t decide how much tax to pay. Obviously many poor people will decide that few rich people must pay more.

> many poor people will decide that few rich people must pay more I fail to see the problem, if you have more money than you could possibly use in a lifetime, why shouldn't that be redistributed through programs that benefit all of society, instead of whatever pet projects the rich person favors.

If the wealth was accumulated legally and fairly, as a result of creating such vast value for society that society willingly parted with their money for the goods/services from the company/ies that the wealthy person invested in and retained an ownership stake in, I don't find it obvious that society should have a further claim on the proceeds from the result of those transactions just because the owner "has too much money".

That person/family has shown some evidence that they're capable of investing money to generate an outsized return on that investment. I would tend to think they might be able to repeat that effect with the way they choose to reinvest the money, be it for societal value or charitable endeavors. I don't see evidence in balance sheets that governments have that same track record.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#555

Post by notsureaboutpg »

7402 wrote: post #525
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'…

Muslims also have a similar tier system of giving charity, but because Islam mandates charity from its followers at a fixed rate (a flat income tax for charity), it places the "communal funds" very low in the totem pole.

Actually the Prophet Muhammad said a similar thing to what Feeney has said here about wanting to give charity while alive rather than after his death:

> A man came to the Prophet and asked, "O Allah's Apostle! Which charity is the most superior in reward?" He replied, "The charity which you practice while you are healthy, niggardly and afraid of poverty and wish to become wealthy. Do not delay it to the time of approaching death and then say, 'Give so much to such and such, and so much to such and such.' And it has already belonged to such and such (as it is too late)."

https://muflihun.com/bukhari/24/500

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#557

Post by nicoburns »

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.

> They invest in companies that provide jobs and the goods and services that the rest of us enjoy. Yes that is virtuous.

They invest in companies and expect a return! If money was directly redistributed, then the people running and working for those companies might able to keep that value that they have created.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#558

Post by skinnymuch »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #526

> “ 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 r…

Whew. Finally. I was scrolling looking for a comment like this. How is almost no one saying this?

The speakers they mentioned are the most establishment politicians you can find. What does that say about his actions that those are the people representing him?

How can you give $70M+ to something that is grassroots too?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#559

Post by notsureaboutpg »

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…

It's also a Muslim way of looking at charity:

https://muflihun.com/bukhari/24/500

But Muslims also have a standard flat rate of charity which is mandatory from every person, so they cover both bases there.

Post reply on HN