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

611–620 of 875 posts

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#611

Post by phs318u »

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.

This is sincerely meant, but if you consider 2 and 1, isn't that a description of progressive taxation in the modern, regulated-capitalist, social-democratic welfare state?

(btw, I made that description up to try and describe the kinds of states I'm referring to. e.g. the USA once was in that category and no longer is in my view, while many European countries probably are in that category).

EDIT: I'd like to point out, I'm assuming no/little corruption. i.e. the theoretical view of such a state.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#612

Post by vicda »

rapind wrote: post #592
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'…

9. When the donation wouldn’t occur without a tax break.

10. When the donation gives you favors in return.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#613

Post by newsclues »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #595
NegativeLatency wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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. Who decides that? The great and scholarly politicians we elect?

Historically, a mob of angry people after their pleas go unheard for too long, like the French Revolution.

Sound familiar?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#614

Post by hinkley »

ketzo wrote: post #436
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…

> Spend your money on riotous living – no tax; Ah, yes, such a shame that the only way to spend a fortune is on caviar and jetskis. This is a purposefully obtuse take. We have specific tax structures to incentivize charitable giving, building businesses, creating things to benefit others.

I want to know what these people are buying that doesn’t have sales tax on it and then taxes on the people who made it.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#615

Post by refurb »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #269
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…

There are two reasons to support a hefty inheritance tax on wealth over $X million. First, it raises revenue to help fill the deficit. More importantly, it is friction against generational wealth. Bill Gates (and his father) have for decades supported inheritance tax and gave this as the explicit reason.

I find the support for inheritance taxes surprising. HN loves the social democracies, but most of them don't have inheritance taxes, with many abolishing them in the past few decades - Australia, NZ, Canada, Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway, Slovakia, Portugal.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#616

Post by refurb »

nugget wrote: post #346
pyronik19 wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a "free" society, what basis does society have a right to say how much stuff you can amass? That or we stop pretending we live in a free society. I want society out of my business... if I want to give it away that's my choice.. if I want my kids to live like kings that's also my choice.

Your definition of freedom is just anarchy. The obvious question: What's to stop somebody from murdering you and taking your wealth? The same objective (or subjective, take your pick) morality that discourages robbery-murder can effortlessly extend to the distribution of wealth in society. An objective moralist once said: "Render unto Caesar...". A subjective moralist could say: "whatever minimizes human suffering an…

Your definition of freedom is just anarchy

How do you go from "it's no ones business how much wealth I accumulate or give to my children" to "anarchy"?

That's not what the OP said at all.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#617

Post by refurb »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #343
jakeva wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a "free" society, what basis does society have to say how much stuff you owe based on your income each year? Or that you have to keep your sidewalk clear of snow each winter? Or that you can't just leave your car wherever you want? What about amassing as much stuff as possible selling controlled substances and brokering crime? If you want society completely out of your business, you're going to have a hard time.

You say that like that as though you're not just uncharitably describing what's basically a libertarian paradise. There are tons of people who want exactly what you find so abhorrent.

He's not saying that in the least. This is a conversation specifically about inheritance taxes. Where do you get libertarian paradise from?

Plenty of countries don't have an inheritance tax and aren't libertarian in the least.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#618

Post by Aeolun »

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…

If you give more money to the government, doesn’t that implicitly mean you are giving/donating about 15% of that money to the military industrial complex?

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#619

Post by ebg13 »

vasco wrote: post #470
ebg13 wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Impact is important, of course, but making an impact when you have everything is not difficult. Things that are not difficult are not impressive.

He did not start with everything.

That's wonderful and not relevant to whether giving away an amount that still leaves you with everything is impressive.

Re: Chuck Feeney Is Now Officially Broke

#620

Post by refurb »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #324
boca_honey wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it really? Where can I read about it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_Papers https://www.businessinsider.com/tax-havens-for-millionaires-...

I don't see anything to suggest "it's most of the world's wealth". Do you have another source?
Post reply on HN