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

561–570 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#561

Post by dvt »

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.

That’s not sad at all. There are plenty of secular reasons for doing a good deed for the sake of the deed itself — not the reward or recognition. I mean, this is basically the entire underpinning of Kantian ethics.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#562

Post by goatherders »

smattiso wrote: post #203
anonAndOn wrote: post #146

Mark Benioff donated $100M to the UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital and got his name on the INSTITUTION (not just a building). What many don't know is that 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).[0]. That $125M was only part of the $394M Chuck ended up giving to UCSF.[1] [0] https://www.healthleadersmedia.com/finance/uc…

Namely something after yourself is tacky. But what should buildings be named after? Famous scientists? Planets? Feeney seems like an awesome guy but sadly in 100 years nobody will know his name!

Who cares if anyone remembers a person's name in 100 years. How many people from the 1920s can you reference by name? 10? 20?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#563

Post by vecinu »

jacquesm wrote: post #300
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…

That's a good point. And 'broke' isn't 100% broke just yet, he's not going to have to sleep under a bridge. But he's broke enough that the wrong accident can put him on the far side of the line easily enough. Obviously this goes for many people but they tend to end up in that situation by accident, not by design and as an example to other billionaires he's pretty impressive. Try imagining Larry Ellison doing this.

Wouldn't Chuck just receive donations from the thousands of people he personally knew and helped? I doubt people would let him go broke under any scenario... the man spent time with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#564

Post by simplify »

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.

If you think people should be 100% selfless, you're asking for too much. Even good-hearted people help for the reward of feeling good about it.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#565

Post by skinnymuch »

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #24

> While many wealthy philanthropists enlist an army of publicists to trumpet their donations, Feeney went to great lengths to keep his gifts secret. Crazy respect for this. Many times billionaire charitable foundations are just tax preferred ways of building your image or amassing influence. Bill Gates has done a lot of good, but his charitable work also served to redeem his image from that of the ruthless businessma…

Then why are establishment politicians not out for the little guy like Pelosi speaking at the final Zoom the article is talking about?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#566

Post by pavanky »

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.

This is true to an extent, but in no way is someone worth $200 billion amassing the wealth the same way someone earning and saving $2 million over a lifetime.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#567

Post by burlesona »

sixstringtheory wrote: post #395
settrans wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 basic argument against the estate tax is moral. It taxes virtue – living frugally and accumulating wealth Only insofar as you believe taxation to be a moral commentary. If one thinks taxation is punishment for a decision, then I can see why one might see it this way. I don't agree, though. Taxation is reinvestment into the society that makes the usage of that tool–money–possible in the first place. I think it's…

The thing is that it's both. In more appropriately neutral language we would say that any tax creates incentives and disincentives, and as a society we should be very mindful of what incentives and disincentives we are creating.

I would actually argue the government has a pretty bad track record when it comes to creating good incentives and "good" disincentives, so usually a better approach would be to try hard and avoid creating incentives or disincentives at all. Proponents of things like VAT, or other very broad, general, and hard to avoid taxes usually see it in those terms.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#568

Post by [deleted] »

wolfhumble wrote: post #520
phaus wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

[deleted]

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#569

Post by theuri »

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.

Judaism has a similar approach - anonymous charity is the highest form of giving.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/256321/jewish...

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#570

Post by bobthechef »

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.

Why? It sounds like you're misunderstanding something, perhaps what "reward" means in a biblical context.

This passage teaches people not to do things for show which is what many of us do in order to gain esteem and puff up our egos, often with still further gains in mind. This leads to enslavement to our egos, the approval of others, to things, and generally our constant grasping and our desires. Such false charity is pointless; it only leads to spiritual death. Allow your good deeds to remain a secret between you and the omniscient God. Charity is not loss. True charity produces spiritual "reward" by starving the monstrous, tyrannical ego that enslaves us to death. I would go so far as to say that it is even better for the giver than the receiver. The ego is Man's idolatry, and we cannot serve two masters. Thus killing the ego frees us to worship God and to live. The ego blinds us. It is like sitting in a bus at night with the lights on. All you see in the windows is yourself. Shatter the mirror and you will be freed.

Post reply on HN