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

601–610 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#601

Post by maerF0x0 »

smillbag wrote: post #268
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. Is there something virtuous about hoarding wealth?

There is lots of virtue in giving far more to society (remember that rational free markets are value exchanges, each party thinks they got a good deal).

Someone who has a lot of stored up value has given lots to society without receipt of anything but some electronic digits (yet). Plus if the government's rules were working they'd also have paid at least some taxes on all that stored wealth, leading to additional societal value.

in rational free markets sone does not need to give twice because the contribution to society is in the provision of things people want.

IMO most of the debate is missing that America doesnt have free markets and keeps trying to duct tape around it without fixing the actual bug.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#602

Post by chrisdirkis »

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…

But you've got to aggregate a) over all the billionaires, not just the ones giving. We're not comparing Bill Gates to the US Govt for impact per dollar, we're comparing all US billionaires vs the US Govt.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#603

Post by throwaway987978 »

larrik wrote: post #352
biztos wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Famous scientists? Yes, absolutely. And if a certain General Hospital in San Francisco were not named after the tackiest of billionaires then maybe it could honor, I dunno, Hugh Toland? Instead of dedicating most of its "about us" page to shining a youngish oligarch's already controversial reputation? https://zuckerbergsanfranciscogeneral.org/about-us/our-histo...

As someone not in the area, I had no idea this was a thing.

When I moved to SF and saw signs for Zuckerberg SF General Hospital, I thought to myself "Surely, that must be just a coincidence and it's not named after Mark Zuckerberg."

I was wrong.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#604

Post by sjtindell »

billiam wrote: post #594
7402 wrote: post #525

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

Maimonides was a smart dude, but I must say I don't understand the highest level here: do you have to know they are about to be impoverished? If so, don't you know their identity to give them a job, a loan, or a gift? Payday lenders might qualify? Maybe I need to consult a rabbi.

I would guess a loan is extended mostly so the one taking it can save face. Some people would choose to live on the streets rather than take a handout and a loan makes it palatable. There’s a (possibly apocryphal) story about George Clooney offering 15 friends $1,000,000 but only if they all take it, so that the friends who would say no out of pride could justify it.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#605

Post by BeetleB »

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…

> but we must remind ourselves that this is unimpressive compared to the poor person who donates $25 to others while starving herself. The value of money is nonlinear.

There are other perspectives on this. Often, the very poor person does not hope he will ever get out of poverty, and that makes it much easier to have a sharing/charitable mindset. Keeping the $25 will help him for a few days, after which he'll be broke again and no better off. Giving it away will have the same end result, albeit a few days earlier - but it will be a charitable act he'll feel good about for life, and may also make a friend.

The person for whom it is most difficult to give is usually the one at the edge of poverty. If he keeps the money, he has a chance he'll escape the cycle of poverty. If he gives it away, he'll never change his station in life. For this somewhat wealthier person, that $25 has a lot more value (As an aside, I'm not sure I would respect him much if he gave it away).

To paraphrase from a popular movie: Put people in a pit with no hope of escape and what you get is fairly boring. But give them a glimmer of hope that they can escape, and then watch how they will destroy one another in their attempts to get out. Charity is generally cheap for those who have nothing: They know they are not losing much when they give it away.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#606

Post by sjtindell »

nicoburns wrote: post #553
gringoDan wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As someone who leans towards a general rule of government == inefficient but doesn’t necessarily like the logic of “billionaire individuals will allocate it better”, I really like your option C re-frame here.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#607

Post by s1artibartfast »

SeanLuke wrote: post #419
gringoDan wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> This is a very Christian way of looking at donations: personal sacrifice / self-deprivation is what matters. I don't think it's what matters necessarily, but I do think that this is why he is receiving praise here and elsewhere. That's a problem, because if we're going to praise him for his sacrifice, we should remind ourselves that his sacrifice is minor compared to other donations due to the nonlinear effect of m…

Why praise sacrifice at all? Personal suffering/sacrifice adds no value to the community, and in fact reduces it.

Maximizing positive impact should be the goal.

Perhaps someone with 25 to their name better serves the community by keeping it?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#609

Post by xxpor »

garmaine wrote: post #591
rhino369 wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nursing home is not “healthcare.”

If you don't go, you die. How is that not?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#610

Post by refurb »

AQuantized wrote: post #462
wang_li wrote: post #418

One could argue that everyone has the same responsibilities to society at large. Thus for every Chuck Feeny and Bill Gates, you, personally you, have an obligation to create many billion dollars of value and give it away. If you don't do that, you're worse than any evil billionaire you care to name. They at least are paying millions of dollars in taxes for any money they pull out of investments. How many millions in…

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.

I would assume that the taxes they pay and the people they hire and pay (and the taxes they pay) pays for much of that infrastructure.

And no, most companies don't pay zero tax.

Post reply on HN